Well lets just say that different players means we cant categories and say this and that works. Because group composition can vary vastly. Thats what im saying. What i get from you is... Get the player to play your game but their stories. Which to me seems like you are lucky if you have all the same players at your table.
Thats all im perceiving.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I agree with what you two have just said. It would be much better to explain and see each others point of view if we were at the same table lol I understand your point of group composition, but i have been lucky enough (if you want to call it such) to have mainly new players, or players who have NEVER played D&D before, who I have sort of molded to the players that fit best with my DM style, so I have never really had a problem player, that I couldn't curve back to fit more of our table's style.
I know you have mentioned problem players before, so it seems that our experiences have just differed, creating different aspects. If I was suddenly put in a position to DM a bunch of experienced players, I'm sure they would play in a style that didn't fit my DM style.
I think part of the problem was we went off on Tangents that had nothing to do with the topic at hand (magic use, role-playing styles, world continuity, etc). The question at hand was, should a skill check dictate a character's decisions. Here is a fairly typical scenario and how I would judge it as DM. If there is something different you would do, you can let us know.
A barbarian(PC) is wandering about town. He comes to a store and goes inside. While browsing the items, he comes across a piece of wood displayed on a stand. "What's this," he asks the shopkeeper(NPC).
"Oh," the shopkeeper says. "That is a rare relic. That is a piece of Noah's Ark." (Shopkeeper makes either a Deception or Persuasion check versus the Passive Insight of the PC, depending on if he's lying or not. If he is lying and fails the Deception check, the DM tells the Player he can tell the shopkeeper is lying…otherwise, he just let's it stand as is.)
"Really," the Barbarian questions. (Barbarian makes an Insight check with a DC based on the previous role. If the shopkeeper was lying and the Barbarian makes the Insight check, the DM tells the player the shopkeeper is lying. Any other result, the DM tells the player he thinks the shopkeeper is telling the truth.)
"How much is it," the barbarian asks.
"500 GP," the shopkeeper replies. (No role is made at this point. It is up to the player to decide if the character thinks it is worth the cost. If he does, he can buy it. If he doesn't, he can walk away or try and haggle down the price.)
"Is it really worth that much," the player asks the DM. (The barbarian makes a Religion check (or History, Arcana, whatever is relevant). The DC is based on how common the knowledge is and it is a floating DC to see how much the player knows. In this example, the story of Noah's Ark is fairly well known, so a low DC would be he knows the story and that's it is somewhat important to that religion. A high DC would allow the character to know that this is a very important story and if this is a relic (as the shopkeeper believes) then it is priceless. After getting this information, the player decides if it is worth it, as above)
"I can't do 500," the barbarian tells the shopkeeper. "How about 300?" (The barbarian now makes a Persuasion check with a DC controlled by the DM based on the NPC's personality. If the shopkeeper wants to get rid of it and is over-pricing it, would be a low DC. If he thinks it is extremely valuable, it would have a high DC.)
"How about 400?" (Same as above with Deception/Persuasion check. The barbarian makes Insight check and figures that this is as low as the shopkeeper will go. The barbarian can now decided based on all this information what he does…buy it, walk away, try and force the shopkeeper to give it to him, etc.)
The barbarian buys it for 400 gp and takes it back to camp where he presents it to the party's priest. The priests questions it's authenticity (using the same type of rolls as above) and discovers that the barbarian believes what he is saying. The barbarian offers to sell it to the priest for 500. (The barbarian makes a Deception/Persuasion check against the priest's Passive Insight. If he fails, the priest feels the barbarian is hiding something.)
"I could give you 300 now, and a favor to be done later." (The priest makes a Persuasion check vs the barbarian's passive Insight. If the priest succeeds, the barbarian believes this is what the priest is willing to do. He can then decide to do an active Insight check against a DC of the priest's roll to try and gain better information. Whatever happens at the end, the barbarian still gets to decide if he's going to take the deal.)
"I can't do it," the barbarian tells the priest. "Guess I'll just hold onto it."
"I really want that," the priest says. "Give it to me or I will curse you." (Priest makes an Intimidation check against the barbarian's Insight. If the priest fails, the barbarian doesn't believe that the priest would actually curse him. If the priest succeeds, the barbarian does believe the priest. The barbarian gets to decide how he will react to this threat.)
In this entire scenario, there were no rolls which determined what the Player would have his character do. The DM gives the information and allows the Player to decide what his character would do based on that information. If the players were strong role-players, many of the rolls could be dropped as they allow the role-playing to dictate results, but for a weak role-player, this allows their Stats to have an effect on what they know. This is what I mean by not taking the Agency away from the Player.
I let the dice decide what the players believe, in terms of the worth of the object and/or the belief that the party's priest would curse them. But after that has been revealed, it is up to the players to decide how this plays out, at my table that is, no more dice rolls would be needed.
It is helpful to note that players make ability checks and not skill checks. Skill checks don't really exist. If you have proficiency in a skill that is relevant to the action being performed you add your proficiency bonus to your ability check. That's not just semantics, it is a fundamental shift that 5e took to resolving actions... and it isn't ever helpful to use phasing that doesn't apply or even relate to the discussion and confuse terms.
As for player to player ability checks, it is perfectly reasonable to choose to allow checks, but not okay to dictate the result of the check. Ideally the checks would be initiated by the players themselves, as DM intervention in PC to PC role play is unnecessary. The PC is entirely controlled by the player, and responds in a manner according to the player's wishes. So the players can roll, and compare rolls, but it is entirely up to each of them as to precisely how to interpret those rolls.
Good roleplayers don't need to be strong-armed into weaving an interesting story. Let them control their own character. It isn't yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It is helpful to note that players make ability checks and not skill checks. Skill checks don't really exist. If you have proficiency in a skill that is relevant to the action being performed you add your proficiency bonus to your ability check. That's not just semantics, it is a fundamental shift that 5e took to resolving actions... and it isn't ever helpful to use phasing that doesn't apply or even relate to the discussion and confuse terms.
As for player to player ability checks, it is perfectly reasonable to choose to allow checks, but not okay to dictate the result of the check. Ideally the checks would be initiated by the players themselves, as DM intervention in PC to PC role play is unnecessary. The PC is entirely controlled by the player, and responds in a manner according to the player's wishes. So the players can roll, and compare rolls, but it is entirely up to each of them as to precisely how to interpret those rolls.
Good roleplayers don't need to be strong-armed into weaving an interesting story. Let them control their own character. It isn't yours.
I understand your point, but it does still seem like the name doesn't matter because whether you call it an ability check or skill check, the player is still rolling a die and adding the same bonus.
But I agree with you idea of players rolling and allowing the rolls to impact the player's decisions for their characters, but like you said at the end of the day it is entirely their character to deal with and they are able to choose what happens 100% of the time, regardless of rolls. It is the players story and the DM should only move the story forward, but not control the characters in the story.
@ravnodaus call it what you want. It doesnt matter anyway. We all understand what the other means.
As for rolls from players... Then i ask you the question. What is the need for rolling the dice if it doesnt matter ? Clearly if a player asked for a role thats because he wanted an outcome from the dm. The question ive been asking since the get go is... Why roll the if it doesnt matter to begin with. If anything your statement is contradictory. Because a roll mean there is a chance of faillure and your goal as a dm is to resolve such actions. A player ask you for a roll. Both players roll their dice but both can just ignore the results and play it the way they want. So again i ask you... Why did you even let that roll be if the person who asked for the is gonna be ignored to begin with.
Let me be clear with a scenario i want you to resolve...
Player says:"i can tear you apart. I still have spells you know." player b askes for an insight check because hes pretty sure he has none left. How do you resolve this simple matter ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Your example of insight is different than a roll of persuasion. In your example, the truth is a finite thing. The idea of remaining spell slots is a check that can reveal that answer, whether they have a spell slot or not. So I would have the player roll deception (whether he's lying or not) and then the other player roll insight. Then the info revealed depends on the roll's results.
Player A "I can tear you apart. I still have spells left, you know." (If he's lying, he makes a Deception Check with DC of Player B's Passive Insight. If he succeeds, DM tells Player B nothing so as not to influence the decision, if failure, he might be lying)
Player B "I don't believe him." (Player B makes an Insight check with DC of Player A's Deception Roll. If he succeeds, DM has Player A tell Player B if he's lying. If he fails, DM tells Player B, he thinks Player A is telling the truth)
Player B then gets to decide how he reacts to the threat knowing this information. The roll matters because it helps determine what information the Character can learn. If the Players are role-playing their characters, this shouldn't be an issue. If, after Player B succeeds on his Insight check, Player A decides to not tell the truth to Player B, that is a Player issue, not a character issue. And it is up to the DM to deal with those type of issues.
For example, Player B says "I don't believe him", succeeds on his Insight Check. Player A decides not to reveal the truth. Now Player B doesn't have the correct information, even though he made the correct rolls, so can't make a proper decision. This situation the DM needs to handle, hopefully not in front of the entire group because that can cause bad feelings.
Of course, with Cantrips, technically the magic user DOES still have spells left, so the Deception would be the "I can tear you apart" part of the statement.
Let's say, instead, Player A is telling the truth.
Player A "I can tear you apart. I still have spells left, you know." (Player A makes a Persuasion/Intimidation check based on the Passive Insight. A success the DM doesn't say anything. A failure the DM says "A bead of sweat falls down his face as "Player A's" uncertainty shows)
Player B "I don't believe him." (Player B rolls Insight Check vs Player A's previous roll as DC. Failure: You can't really tell if he's telling the truth. Success: "Player A" believes that he can do what he says)
Player B still gets to decide how his character Reacts, based on the Information he has.
The answer in our current world is that a parkour guy that is pro can already jump a height of a 100 feet and easily live. Though most parkour people are able to survive with no damage a height of 50. The pros can go up to about that hundred. So...
As a D&D guy and DM for a bit over 3 decades and a strength & conditioning, fitness professional that has done videos and worked along side Parkour pros and other really good, ninja-like guys, this is straight up laughable.
Shit happens. Parachutes don't open, special forces fall from helicopters and all manner of physics anomalies, but to defend your opposition with any mortal falling from 100ft, and "easily" living is. Well, I came on here after a post made 3 months to just tell you, let folk do as they do and don't try and tell them they aren't right, because in this case, no one, fear, physics or otherwise is falling from that height and doing anything easily other than most likely, dying.
Ok... So in d&d... Lets just say that all characters who fall more then 80 feet just die instantly. Because why not. Realism right.
But why stop there... Instead... Lets say you lose 10 hit points at a fall of 10 feet. Lets say you lose half your life at 40 and all of it at 80. It would be much simpler then starting to calculate physics. After all... Every high schooler can calculate physics from gravity and velocity. And its not as if hit points were truly define...
So go ahead... I want a new system to calculate hit points. That is easy to grasp and easy to understand. And im serious about this. Go ahead give me a simple system that works the fact that anybody will die after a fall of 100 feet without having to use calculations more then simple additions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Go ahead give me a simple system that works the fact that anybody will die after a fall of 100 feet without having to use calculations more then simple additions.
This is not too simple, but
My House Rule Summary. Falling no longer does Hit Point damage. Instead, it has the potential of causing levels of Exhaustion.
First, make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. For every 5 points that this check exceeds 5, reduce the potential fall height by 10 feet for damage purposes. If this reduction is at or greater than the true height of the fall, you land without becoming prone.
Example. Thus, if the total check was 10 - 14, negate 10' from the fall. If the total check was 15 - 19, negate 20'. If the total check was 20 - 24, negate 30'. And so on.
If you still have distance that was not reduced by your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, roll 1d6 and add 1 for each 20' segment of fall remaining. You may subtract from this your proficiency bonus. You suffer this many levels of exhaustion (with a minimum of one level of exhaustion).
Example. If there is still 30' of falling unaccounted for and if your proficiency bonus is +4, then roll 1d6, add 1, and subtract 4. Hence, if you roll 5, you would suffer 5 + 1 - 4 = 2 levels of exhaustion.
How do you take the Monk falling ability into account? With the current system, a Monk of a high enough level could avoid all damage from a fall, but with yours, they would take at least 1 point of Exhaustion.
The long answer... monks still get a significant advantage over other classes. For horrendously long falls, they should face some peril. For every two levels, the monk reduces fall damage by 10'. So a 4th-level monk would automatically negate 20' of falling damage - no difference from RAW. However, if the original fall was 60', then there is an Acrobatics check. Let's say they get the average (10.5) roll + their Acrobatics mod of +4. Then they have an effective 14 on their check. Thus, they negate another 10'. Hence, they have 30' unaccounted for. Now do the exhaustion levels...
RAW would have them take 4d6 for the remaining damage, but I like the exhaustion levels better because it is more "level independent" than HP.
One free feat for everybody at 1st level. This allows for a lot of things in terms of flavor and having access to the occasional feat that really only makes sense to have always had. It also gives everyone one opportunity to personalize their character with a feat without the agonizing choice of having to sacrifice a possibly necessary stat add to a primary stat, which is especially a problem if the didn't min/max their race with their class and are suffering in their main stat for their rp choice.
So go ahead... I want a new system to calculate hit points. That is easy to grasp and easy to understand. And im serious about this. Go ahead give me a simple system that works the fact that anybody will die after a fall of 100 feet without having to use calculations more then simple additions.
I'm a bit confused. Offer you something so that we can sell you on our ideas? Offer you a system so that you can pick it apart and find a way to say that it's wrong? I don't get what we are doing here.
Not to derail the thread, as it's about House Rules and falling damage is a very minor thing in the grand scheme of all that is house rules, but I'll bite. Here is how I do it.
I tell my PCs, "if you fall from 100ft or greater, your character dies." They respond with, "barbarian HP + rage damage resistance" or "but monk slow fall", and I simply say -
"ok sorry. For those that might have special falling mechanics things, we'll cross that bridge (haha) when we get to it. For everyone else, if you fall from 100ft or greater, your character dies."
For my table and my game, isn't that the most accurate, efficient and therefore, greatest system ever?
One free feat for everybody at 1st level. This allows for a lot of things in terms of flavor and having access to the occasional feat that really only makes sense to have always had. It also gives everyone one opportunity to personalize their character with a feat without the agonizing choice of having to sacrifice a possibly necessary stat add to a primary stat, which is especially a problem if the didn't min/max their race with their class and are suffering in their main stat for their rp choice.
I created a new variant of each race that took the +1 additional ability score increase and gave them an option of one racial trait to select and then they also gain a feat, to keep it balanced with the Variant human rules, that way everyone gets the option to take a feat at 1st level for a cost.
Variant human in my games still gets their free feat on top on the extra I offer.
I like feats and think a well chosen feat can add a lot to a character. The entire point is to give a player the ability to choose a feat entirely guilt free, entirely for the purpose of further customizing their characters.
I don't like everything needing to be a sacrifice or a this or that decision. Just a free feat no strings attached. I absolutely despise 5e making the feat or attributes decision.
If I had designed it I'd have had some feat slots at certain levels, maybe two, and two levels that are attribute boosts only and three that are a choice between the two.
Might figure out a way to houserule it. Any bonuses that some classes get will be choice types.
Well lets just say that different players means we cant categories and say this and that works. Because group composition can vary vastly. Thats what im saying. What i get from you is... Get the player to play your game but their stories. Which to me seems like you are lucky if you have all the same players at your table.
Thats all im perceiving.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I agree with what you two have just said. It would be much better to explain and see each others point of view if we were at the same table lol I understand your point of group composition, but i have been lucky enough (if you want to call it such) to have mainly new players, or players who have NEVER played D&D before, who I have sort of molded to the players that fit best with my DM style, so I have never really had a problem player, that I couldn't curve back to fit more of our table's style.
I know you have mentioned problem players before, so it seems that our experiences have just differed, creating different aspects. If I was suddenly put in a position to DM a bunch of experienced players, I'm sure they would play in a style that didn't fit my DM style.
Published Subclasses
I think part of the problem was we went off on Tangents that had nothing to do with the topic at hand (magic use, role-playing styles, world continuity, etc). The question at hand was, should a skill check dictate a character's decisions. Here is a fairly typical scenario and how I would judge it as DM. If there is something different you would do, you can let us know.
A barbarian(PC) is wandering about town. He comes to a store and goes inside. While browsing the items, he comes across a piece of wood displayed on a stand. "What's this," he asks the shopkeeper(NPC).
"Oh," the shopkeeper says. "That is a rare relic. That is a piece of Noah's Ark."
(Shopkeeper makes either a Deception or Persuasion check versus the Passive Insight of the PC, depending on if he's lying or not. If he is lying and fails the Deception check, the DM tells the Player he can tell the shopkeeper is lying…otherwise, he just let's it stand as is.)
"Really," the Barbarian questions.
(Barbarian makes an Insight check with a DC based on the previous role. If the shopkeeper was lying and the Barbarian makes the Insight check, the DM tells the player the shopkeeper is lying. Any other result, the DM tells the player he thinks the shopkeeper is telling the truth.)
"How much is it," the barbarian asks.
"500 GP," the shopkeeper replies.
(No role is made at this point. It is up to the player to decide if the character thinks it is worth the cost. If he does, he can buy it. If he doesn't, he can walk away or try and haggle down the price.)
"Is it really worth that much," the player asks the DM.
(The barbarian makes a Religion check (or History, Arcana, whatever is relevant). The DC is based on how common the knowledge is and it is a floating DC to see how much the player knows. In this example, the story of Noah's Ark is fairly well known, so a low DC would be he knows the story and that's it is somewhat important to that religion. A high DC would allow the character to know that this is a very important story and if this is a relic (as the shopkeeper believes) then it is priceless. After getting this information, the player decides if it is worth it, as above)
"I can't do 500," the barbarian tells the shopkeeper. "How about 300?"
(The barbarian now makes a Persuasion check with a DC controlled by the DM based on the NPC's personality. If the shopkeeper wants to get rid of it and is over-pricing it, would be a low DC. If he thinks it is extremely valuable, it would have a high DC.)
"How about 400?"
(Same as above with Deception/Persuasion check. The barbarian makes Insight check and figures that this is as low as the shopkeeper will go. The barbarian can now decided based on all this information what he does…buy it, walk away, try and force the shopkeeper to give it to him, etc.)
The barbarian buys it for 400 gp and takes it back to camp where he presents it to the party's priest. The priests questions it's authenticity (using the same type of rolls as above) and discovers that the barbarian believes what he is saying. The barbarian offers to sell it to the priest for 500.
(The barbarian makes a Deception/Persuasion check against the priest's Passive Insight. If he fails, the priest feels the barbarian is hiding something.)
"I could give you 300 now, and a favor to be done later."
(The priest makes a Persuasion check vs the barbarian's passive Insight. If the priest succeeds, the barbarian believes this is what the priest is willing to do. He can then decide to do an active Insight check against a DC of the priest's roll to try and gain better information. Whatever happens at the end, the barbarian still gets to decide if he's going to take the deal.)
"I can't do it," the barbarian tells the priest. "Guess I'll just hold onto it."
"I really want that," the priest says. "Give it to me or I will curse you."
(Priest makes an Intimidation check against the barbarian's Insight. If the priest fails, the barbarian doesn't believe that the priest would actually curse him. If the priest succeeds, the barbarian does believe the priest. The barbarian gets to decide how he will react to this threat.)
In this entire scenario, there were no rolls which determined what the Player would have his character do. The DM gives the information and allows the Player to decide what his character would do based on that information. If the players were strong role-players, many of the rolls could be dropped as they allow the role-playing to dictate results, but for a weak role-player, this allows their Stats to have an effect on what they know. This is what I mean by not taking the Agency away from the Player.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I let the dice decide what the players believe, in terms of the worth of the object and/or the belief that the party's priest would curse them. But after that has been revealed, it is up to the players to decide how this plays out, at my table that is, no more dice rolls would be needed.
Published Subclasses
It is helpful to note that players make ability checks and not skill checks. Skill checks don't really exist. If you have proficiency in a skill that is relevant to the action being performed you add your proficiency bonus to your ability check. That's not just semantics, it is a fundamental shift that 5e took to resolving actions... and it isn't ever helpful to use phasing that doesn't apply or even relate to the discussion and confuse terms.
As for player to player ability checks, it is perfectly reasonable to choose to allow checks, but not okay to dictate the result of the check. Ideally the checks would be initiated by the players themselves, as DM intervention in PC to PC role play is unnecessary. The PC is entirely controlled by the player, and responds in a manner according to the player's wishes. So the players can roll, and compare rolls, but it is entirely up to each of them as to precisely how to interpret those rolls.
Good roleplayers don't need to be strong-armed into weaving an interesting story. Let them control their own character. It isn't yours.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I understand your point, but it does still seem like the name doesn't matter because whether you call it an ability check or skill check, the player is still rolling a die and adding the same bonus.
But I agree with you idea of players rolling and allowing the rolls to impact the player's decisions for their characters, but like you said at the end of the day it is entirely their character to deal with and they are able to choose what happens 100% of the time, regardless of rolls. It is the players story and the DM should only move the story forward, but not control the characters in the story.
Published Subclasses
@ravnodaus call it what you want. It doesnt matter anyway. We all understand what the other means.
As for rolls from players... Then i ask you the question. What is the need for rolling the dice if it doesnt matter ? Clearly if a player asked for a role thats because he wanted an outcome from the dm. The question ive been asking since the get go is... Why roll the if it doesnt matter to begin with. If anything your statement is contradictory. Because a roll mean there is a chance of faillure and your goal as a dm is to resolve such actions. A player ask you for a roll. Both players roll their dice but both can just ignore the results and play it the way they want. So again i ask you... Why did you even let that roll be if the person who asked for the is gonna be ignored to begin with.
Let me be clear with a scenario i want you to resolve...
Player says:"i can tear you apart. I still have spells you know." player b askes for an insight check because hes pretty sure he has none left. How do you resolve this simple matter ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Your example of insight is different than a roll of persuasion. In your example, the truth is a finite thing. The idea of remaining spell slots is a check that can reveal that answer, whether they have a spell slot or not. So I would have the player roll deception (whether he's lying or not) and then the other player roll insight. Then the info revealed depends on the roll's results.
Published Subclasses
Player A "I can tear you apart. I still have spells left, you know." (If he's lying, he makes a Deception Check with DC of Player B's Passive Insight. If he succeeds, DM tells Player B nothing so as not to influence the decision, if failure, he might be lying)
Player B "I don't believe him." (Player B makes an Insight check with DC of Player A's Deception Roll. If he succeeds, DM has Player A tell Player B if he's lying. If he fails, DM tells Player B, he thinks Player A is telling the truth)
Player B then gets to decide how he reacts to the threat knowing this information. The roll matters because it helps determine what information the Character can learn. If the Players are role-playing their characters, this shouldn't be an issue. If, after Player B succeeds on his Insight check, Player A decides to not tell the truth to Player B, that is a Player issue, not a character issue. And it is up to the DM to deal with those type of issues.
For example, Player B says "I don't believe him", succeeds on his Insight Check. Player A decides not to reveal the truth. Now Player B doesn't have the correct information, even though he made the correct rolls, so can't make a proper decision. This situation the DM needs to handle, hopefully not in front of the entire group because that can cause bad feelings.
Of course, with Cantrips, technically the magic user DOES still have spells left, so the Deception would be the "I can tear you apart" part of the statement.
Let's say, instead, Player A is telling the truth.
Player A "I can tear you apart. I still have spells left, you know." (Player A makes a Persuasion/Intimidation check based on the Passive Insight. A success the DM doesn't say anything. A failure the DM says "A bead of sweat falls down his face as "Player A's" uncertainty shows)
Player B "I don't believe him." (Player B rolls Insight Check vs Player A's previous roll as DC. Failure: You can't really tell if he's telling the truth. Success: "Player A" believes that he can do what he says)
Player B still gets to decide how his character Reacts, based on the Information he has.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
As a D&D guy and DM for a bit over 3 decades and a strength & conditioning, fitness professional that has done videos and worked along side Parkour pros and other really good, ninja-like guys, this is straight up laughable.
Shit happens. Parachutes don't open, special forces fall from helicopters and all manner of physics anomalies, but to defend your opposition with any mortal falling from 100ft, and "easily" living is. Well, I came on here after a post made 3 months to just tell you, let folk do as they do and don't try and tell them they aren't right, because in this case, no one, fear, physics or otherwise is falling from that height and doing anything easily other than most likely, dying.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Ok... So in d&d... Lets just say that all characters who fall more then 80 feet just die instantly. Because why not. Realism right.
But why stop there... Instead... Lets say you lose 10 hit points at a fall of 10 feet. Lets say you lose half your life at 40 and all of it at 80. It would be much simpler then starting to calculate physics. After all... Every high schooler can calculate physics from gravity and velocity. And its not as if hit points were truly define...
So go ahead... I want a new system to calculate hit points. That is easy to grasp and easy to understand. And im serious about this. Go ahead give me a simple system that works the fact that anybody will die after a fall of 100 feet without having to use calculations more then simple additions.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
This is not too simple, but
My House Rule Summary. Falling no longer does Hit Point damage. Instead, it has the potential of causing levels of Exhaustion.
First, make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check. For every 5 points that this check exceeds 5, reduce the potential fall height by 10 feet for damage purposes. If this reduction is at or greater than the true height of the fall, you land without becoming prone.
Example. Thus, if the total check was 10 - 14, negate 10' from the fall. If the total check was 15 - 19, negate 20'. If the total check was 20 - 24, negate 30'. And so on.
If you still have distance that was not reduced by your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check, roll 1d6 and add 1 for each 20' segment of fall remaining. You may subtract from this your proficiency bonus. You suffer this many levels of exhaustion (with a minimum of one level of exhaustion).
Example. If there is still 30' of falling unaccounted for and if your proficiency bonus is +4, then roll 1d6, add 1, and subtract 4. Hence, if you roll 5, you would suffer 5 + 1 - 4 = 2 levels of exhaustion.
How do you take the Monk falling ability into account? With the current system, a Monk of a high enough level could avoid all damage from a fall, but with yours, they would take at least 1 point of Exhaustion.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
The short answer? Yes
The long answer... monks still get a significant advantage over other classes. For horrendously long falls, they should face some peril. For every two levels, the monk reduces fall damage by 10'. So a 4th-level monk would automatically negate 20' of falling damage - no difference from RAW. However, if the original fall was 60', then there is an Acrobatics check. Let's say they get the average (10.5) roll + their Acrobatics mod of +4. Then they have an effective 14 on their check. Thus, they negate another 10'. Hence, they have 30' unaccounted for. Now do the exhaustion levels...
RAW would have them take 4d6 for the remaining damage, but I like the exhaustion levels better because it is more "level independent" than HP.
One free feat for everybody at 1st level. This allows for a lot of things in terms of flavor and having access to the occasional feat that really only makes sense to have always had. It also gives everyone one opportunity to personalize their character with a feat without the agonizing choice of having to sacrifice a possibly necessary stat add to a primary stat, which is especially a problem if the didn't min/max their race with their class and are suffering in their main stat for their rp choice.
I'm a bit confused. Offer you something so that we can sell you on our ideas? Offer you a system so that you can pick it apart and find a way to say that it's wrong? I don't get what we are doing here.
Not to derail the thread, as it's about House Rules and falling damage is a very minor thing in the grand scheme of all that is house rules, but I'll bite. Here is how I do it.
I tell my PCs, "if you fall from 100ft or greater, your character dies." They respond with, "barbarian HP + rage damage resistance" or "but monk slow fall", and I simply say -
"ok sorry. For those that might have special falling mechanics things, we'll cross that bridge (haha) when we get to it. For everyone else, if you fall from 100ft or greater, your character dies."
For my table and my game, isn't that the most accurate, efficient and therefore, greatest system ever?
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I created a new variant of each race that took the +1 additional ability score increase and gave them an option of one racial trait to select and then they also gain a feat, to keep it balanced with the Variant human rules, that way everyone gets the option to take a feat at 1st level for a cost.
Published Subclasses
Variant human in my games still gets their free feat on top on the extra I offer.
I like feats and think a well chosen feat can add a lot to a character. The entire point is to give a player the ability to choose a feat entirely guilt free, entirely for the purpose of further customizing their characters.
I don't like everything needing to be a sacrifice or a this or that decision. Just a free feat no strings attached. I absolutely despise 5e making the feat or attributes decision.
If I had designed it I'd have had some feat slots at certain levels, maybe two, and two levels that are attribute boosts only and three that are a choice between the two.
Might figure out a way to houserule it. Any bonuses that some classes get will be choice types.
You could extend the levels to 25 and then add a feat right before each ability score increase? Or allow both, feat and ability score increase?
Published Subclasses
Was considering leaving the others where they are making a feat at lvl one, 10 and 20, as well as having the level 8 and level 16 slot be versatile.
So 1 = feat, 4 = attributes, 8 = versatile, 10 = feat, 12 = attributes, 16 = versatile, 19 = attributes, and 20 = feat.