I'll say it again, none of the PC's in my campaigns have died. The players who got frustrated were simply knocked unconscious and therefore couldn't do anything until their characters were patched up.
And as far as your experience in PBP is concerned, my experience has been very, very different, and I would certainly NOT say that PBP feels anything like FTF. At all. As I said before, my players WEREN'T being careless. They were acting with sound tactics and the dice just didn't cooperate. Despite the encounters being balanced (which is why they DIDN'T die) the unlucky players just had all their fun sucked away thanks to the luck all landing on the wrong side. The rules I'm workshopping are purely, 100% a check against the dice stubbornly disallowing players from succeeding in what they're trying to do without direct and obvious intervention from the DM(IF that even matters to the players; if they don't care that the DM isn't using the dice roller, it's all moot anyway, but as I said before, there seems to be an expectation that the DM roll like the PCs do), and that's ALL. It offers at least a fair chance(not a guarantee) for an unlucky player to withdraw and hunker down without being taken completely out of play or make a big gamble and fight to the bitter end. With the CON/Vitality buffer, it's at least the player's choice to take a chance and keep fighting when they're really on their last legs, so if they go down, it's their own fault, rather than getting crit'd for max damage at the beginning of the round and getting knocked out while only being down 5 HP from max through no fault of their own and end up at -1. The buffer is not a catch all either, with it only being as big as their max CON, it's not a very big buffer, but for consistently unlucky players, it would be enough to at least help out SOME so play can continue with everyone contributing.
and yet you felt like giving them more HP to make sure they wouldn'T go down. so why would anyone in your game not be reckless considering you just literally told them, they shouldn'T be going down at all. because that sucks... this is what pretty much everyone is telling you in this thread.
everybody is telling me that their game is very very veryvery very different from mine, but i dont think thats true, i think saying that is just meaning one thing... your thinking that my players are different or act different from yours... but reality is... they don't... i've had about 30 groups of players going from 1 to 15 players per group... thats over 100 people i played with... pretty much all of them i can categorise in 3 types of players... i have yet to see any wildly different playing groups... so i doubt your group to be that different from mines... that leads me to think that argument everyone is giving me, is just a cope out mechanism to say "i hate what you are saying and i dont want you to speak anymore" but hey... you asked for opinions the very moment you wrote this on the forum...
i'm just saying... i don't think that system of yours is any better then playing the game as is. again... instead of letting the dice roll as they were... you were the DM... you could of done something about it. but you decided to just give your players more life and thus telling them, you'll never go down in this game, cause being down in PBP sucks. instead of making a whole new system about it... i would play the drawback but go forward method. which do not require giving more life to a player. like instead of leting him go down to 0 hp... you could of said, i'm gonna let you stay at 1 hp, prone, but alive and conscious... but yoiu are now injured and something bad will happen if this doesn't finish soon enough. and that would be it for that one...
but hey, its your call... give them twice their life if you truly want that to be... but just telling you... if i was one of those players... i'd become very careless considering you'd just have gave me twice my life.
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)
err, as I have said before, the earlier form of the Boromir Rule was never implemented. For that matter, the second version hasn't either. Some of my other players had similar concerns and that's why they're not being used. You're harping on about a homebrew that I had already reconsidered using months ago. That's why this is a WORKSHOP, this is for fine tuning and getting opinions on rules so things aren't unbalanced/not fun/overly complicated, especially in the arena of PBP. You seem to have made a lot of assumptions without knowing the context. As I've been saying, this thread was made in response to a campaign that ended due to several players having a run of very bad luck to playtest POSSIBLE new rules to act as a check against uncooperative dice ONLY, but NONE of them have been used as of yet. My current campaign is running well so far, but I want to have balanced and fair additional rules waiting in the wings SHOULD things go sideways in future campaigns with players who want me to 'play it straight' and use the dice roller in-thread thanks to abysmal RNG. I would NOT suddenly throw homebrew rules at my players without unanimous consent and certainly not rules I haven't playtested or at least simulated first.
I'll say it again, none of the PC's in my campaigns have died. The players who got frustrated were simply knocked unconscious and therefore couldn't do anything until their characters were patched up.
And as far as your experience in PBP is concerned, my experience has been very, very different, and I would certainly NOT say that PBP feels anything like FTF. At all. As I said before, my players WEREN'T being careless. They were acting with sound tactics and the dice just didn't cooperate. Despite the encounters being balanced (which is why they DIDN'T die) the unlucky players just had all their fun sucked away thanks to the luck all landing on the wrong side. The rules I'm workshopping are purely, 100% a check against the dice stubbornly disallowing players from succeeding in what they're trying to do without direct and obvious intervention from the DM(IF that even matters to the players; if they don't care that the DM isn't using the dice roller, it's all moot anyway, but as I said before, there seems to be an expectation that the DM roll like the PCs do), and that's ALL. It offers at least a fair chance(not a guarantee) for an unlucky player to withdraw and hunker down without being taken completely out of play or make a big gamble and fight to the bitter end. With the CON/Vitality buffer, it's at least the player's choice to take a chance and keep fighting when they're really on their last legs, so if they go down, it's their own fault, rather than getting crit'd for max damage at the beginning of the round and getting knocked out while only being down 5 HP from max through no fault of their own and end up at -1. The buffer is not a catch all either, with it only being as big as their max CON, it's not a very big buffer, but for consistently unlucky players, it would be enough to at least help out SOME so play can continue with everyone contributing.
but hey, its your call... give them twice their life if you truly want that to be... but just telling you... if i was one of those players... i'd become very careless considering you'd just have gave me twice my life.
Why are you being a sarcastic #*@#? If this conversation isn't for you, if you don't think these changes are good ideas, just say so and move on. No one needs, or wants, to read your sarcasm.
I can see players being reckless as a problem in some games ... but the campaign setting (a major emphasis on role playing and character building) does not lend itself to characters who have spent all this time building a personality/history plus relationships (or lack of) with other characters just jump off a cliff because they ‘can’t die’.That type of game by nature doesn’t attract the reckless sort.
The DM is workshopping ways to keep players invested in their hard work- not creating overpowered characters who don’t suffer consequences. If your theory of running a PBP is Apples to her Oranges, thanks for your opinion. No need to beat a dead horse.
As a player in that campaign I appreciate the concern the DM has for keeping her players invested. Do we always agree on rules? Nope. But the end product of discussion is to find a middle ground we can all live with. It’s a great campaign- it’s got great players who dig the storyline and enjoy playing. Nothing about any of that is broke. A player trying to act up and ‘take advantage’ of that concern sounds like pretty much a crap player. Thankfully that has not been our experience.
that leads me to think that argument everyone is giving me, is just a cope out mechanism to say "i hate what you are saying and i dont want you to speak anymore" but hey... you asked for opinions the very moment you wrote this on the forum...
This is the most ignorant,unthoughful,idioitic,Arrogant and downright disrespectful thing i have ever seen.You can never win an arugument thinking the enemy is a idiot with no real points simply because you have no point yourself.
that leads me to think that argument everyone is giving me, is just a cope out mechanism to say "i hate what you are saying and i dont want you to speak anymore" but hey... you asked for opinions the very moment you wrote this on the forum...
This is the most ignorant,unthoughful,idioitic,Arrogant and downright disrespectful thing i have ever seen.You can never win an arugument thinking the enemy is a idiot with no real points simply because you have no point yourself.
i'll ignore that first part of yours... but my point was simple...
would it change your play style if you had more hit points ? i know it would for me.
now one of the player just said, the game isn't about combat... pretty much the only way to die in the game is because of combat... so one has to wonder now... whats the point of making a combat mechanic in a game that has barely any combat ? in any cases, i gave my concern for it... my opinion on it... now if the person wants to bash me in saying im wrong, then be my guess... but asking people for opinions and then expecting them to just accept your stuff as good, is pretty much as idiotic as what you are saying.
just saying people... when i post on this forum i expect people to have a say int he matter and i do take into account what others say. i love discussion... but being told im wrong and stupid because i'm not agreeing is pretty much idiotic as well. just food for thought.
for the others in the thread... i understand your point and if your players love it, then so be it... thats the whole point of a game, for everyone to love whats hapenning... if it works for you then i'm happy for you... but i fear most of the people who would play the game would play very very differently if they get twice their amount of HP. i know i would play differently... so if i would do that, its obvious others would too. but again, if it works for you, so be it, have fun ! thats the point.
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)
Dude! I already said I haven't implemented the rule because the other players had similar reservations about adding too many homebrew rules and I wouldn't force homebrew without unanimous consent! Jeez. The original post about the old Boromir Rule was from friggin January, I changed my mind about it a WHILE ago. Calm your butt.
I'm just working out rules to adopt SHOULD THE NEED ARISE. Hopefully it won't come to that because the current campaign I have running is going fine so far. That's why this is a workshop, so I can playtest and simulate and get feedback so any homebrew rules I add are appropriate for enriching player experience, not just 'cause I said so'.
just saying people... when i post on this forum i expect people to have a say int he matter and i do take into account what others say. i love discussion... but being told im wrong and stupid because i'm not agreeing is pretty much idiotic as well. just food for thought.
You love discussion? Then why the massive sarcasm?
that leads me to think that argument everyone is giving me, is just a cope out mechanism to say "i hate what you are saying and i dont want you to speak anymore" but hey... you asked for opinions the very moment you wrote this on the forum...
This is the most ignorant,unthoughful,idioitic,Arrogant and downright disrespectful thing i have ever seen.You can never win an arugument thinking the enemy is a idiot with no real points simply because you have no point yourself.
i'll ignore that first part of yours... but my point was simple...
would it change your play style if you had more hit points ? i know it would for me.
now one of the player just said, the game isn't about combat... pretty much the only way to die in the game is because of combat... so one has to wonder now... whats the point of making a combat mechanic in a game that has barely any combat ? in any cases, i gave my concern for it... my opinion on it... now if the person wants to bash me in saying im wrong, then be my guess... but asking people for opinions and then expecting them to just accept your stuff as good, is pretty much as idiotic as what you are saying.
just saying people... when i post on this forum i expect people to have a say int he matter and i do take into account what others say. i love discussion... but being told im wrong and stupid because i'm not agreeing is pretty much idiotic as well. just food for thought.
for the others in the thread... i understand your point and if your players love it, then so be it... thats the whole point of a game, for everyone to love whats hapenning... if it works for you then i'm happy for you... but i fear most of the people who would play the game would play very very differently if they get twice their amount of HP. i know i would play differently... so if i would do that, its obvious others would too. but again, if it works for you, so be it, have fun ! thats the point.
Things like this is why are wish dnd beyond had a downvote option
So, thanks to Firecat's help, I'd like to propose the following rules for learning new skills or refining learned skills after you all hit level 1 for the campaign as the mechanics seem to work at a desirable pace:
Hiring a tutor:
When you have a tutor, whether they be a friend, associate, or actually hired, and they have at least 2 more proficiency points in a skill than you do, they can train your character in gaining proficiency with a skill. For balance purposes, friends who are within 2 experience levels of you count as 'low end' tutors. If they're 2 or more experience levels higher than you, they're 'medium' tutors, and 5+ experience levels higher are 'high end' tutors. Each day of training will take 8 hours (You do not need to roleplay out the entire day) at the end of which, you may roll a CON save to determine if you have level 1 exhaustion afterwards or not. You may not train more than once per day. There's only so much you can cram into your brain each day and actually retain.
In general, low end tutors will cost 50 GP for a week's worth of training or will be free, if they are true friends. Medium tutors will cost 100 GP a week, and high end tutors will cost 150GP a week. When training, you roleplay out whatever activity that will help build up your character's skill. Gaining proficiency is like hitting a target; your tutor rolls 1D20+their current proficiency bonus and subtracts that from 30. This is the 'learning curve' target that your character will have to hit. Your character then rolls 1D20+any INT or associated Ability Score bonus they have as well as any existing proficiency bonuses, whichever is higher. If they 'miss' the learning curve, they don't manage to grasp the training exercise for that day. If they 'hit' the learning curve, they then get to roll for 'skill points' as if they were rolling damage. Each day, the tutor rolls a new 'learning curve' target. After all, even teachers have off days.
The number of skill points you gain depends on the quality of the tutor. A low end tutor will give you 1D4+INT/AS modifier skill points, a medium tutor 1D6+INT/AS mod, and high end, 1D8+INT/AS mod. It takes 30 skill points to gain+1 proficiency, another 30 for +2, 60 for +3, 90 for +4, and so on. The more skilled you are, the more you have to train to improve.
If you don't want to roleplay out the actual training sessions (Though doing so may introduce a greater bond between yourself and your instructor) you can simply roll like you're engaged in combat to see how many skill points you earn throughout the week training with your tutor.
Personal practice:
The effectiveness of your personal practice is determined largely by your character's intelligence or natural ability. Even if not particularly gifted in the requisite ability score associated with the skill being practiced, a high intelligence will allow a character to retain the knowledge gained through practice much more efficiently. Your DM will determine what resources will be consumed by your character practicing and how much it costs per day to replenish those resources. When performing personal practice, your character must be in good condition, have full HP, and no status ailments. Your character must be able to focus all their attention on their practice, and again, can roll a CON save afterwards to avoid exhaustion. Your character must devote 8 hours to practice a day. You then roll 1D4+INT bonuses to see how many chances you get that day to beat a DC 15 + current proficiency bonus skill check. Your current proficiency bonus is added to the difficulty class because the more skilled you are, the harder it is to improve. You gain as many skill points that day as the number of times you manage to beat the skill check. Personal practice is costly and its effectiveness is more inconsistent than a tutor, but trial and error is still a viable means of learning.
School:
.... I need to figure one out still, but it should be an option as well.
I'm not crazy about a player using their Intelligence as a modifier for everything. Your taking one classes dump stat and making it pretty pivotal to learning. If a wizard with high intelligence learns athletics they may grasp the concept quicker than a lunkhead- but putting it into practice? Why not use the ability score modifier for the skill type? (Int for Investigation, Dex for Acrobatics, Wis for Insight, Cha for Persuasion, etc.).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fleabag Fleabane-Tabaxi Ranger | Lenny Coggins- Halfling Barbarian | Sid Shatterbuckle- Dwarf Fighter/Rogue| Lazlo - Satyr Bard in Training
I might be a little biased here but, actually, that's a valid point. Theory is not everything. On the other hand, it is part of the deal. You can't learn to swim without getting into the water at least once, but you'll most likely drown eventually if not taught the effective, not-tiring methods.
Perhaps a combination of Int and the applicable AS modifier? This would still make brighter characters have an easier time learning skills, while allowing naturally skilled ones to learn even without being particularly bright. The question that comes up, however, is what happens when you're trying to learn an Int-based skill. Double bonus or nah?
I'm not crazy about a player using their Intelligence as a modifier for everything. Your taking one classes dump stat and making it pretty pivotal to learning. If a wizard with high intelligence learns athletics they may grasp the concept quicker than a lunkhead- but putting it into practice? Why not use the ability score modifier for the skill type? (Int for Investigation, Dex for Acrobatics, Wis for Insight, Cha for Persuasion, etc.).
I agree with this. It applies to all skills, really. I may learn the skills to be suave and debonair but if I’m still an arrogant jerk, I’m still an arrogant jerk and my low CHA is what I have to work with.
I wouldn't call INT pivotal to learning, but being smart definitely makes it easier to learn, especially if you're having to teach yourself through trial and error. Unless you're a genius with 18 INT, even a character with 10 INT would, on average, learn far faster by studying under a very skilled master instead of a teammate. Paying a good teacher will be on average way, way more consistent than trying to learn on the cheap.
For practice, a very respectable +3 modifier for self-study only raises the chance of success by 15%. That's not huge. It's an advantage, but unless you have an INT penalty, chances are it's just going to take you a little longer to gain skill points than a high-INT character. It's not going to be a difference between a tortoise and a hare even if you are learning on the cheap, but smart characters SHOULD have an easier time retaining the knowledge gained through practice and study over characters who are absent-minded or lack reasoning ability.
To be sure though, I'll run some simulations to see if it would be too easy to build skills if the checks are modified by the appropriate ability score. The main reason I was hesitant to use 'ability score specific modifiers for skill checks' is because really? Smart characters SHOULD learn faster regardless of what they're trying to learn because... well, that's what intelligence DOES for you. Does being smart help you learn athletics? Absolutely! While it might be easy to dismiss athletes as big muscleheads, quite a few professional athletes used athletic scholarships to pay for higher education. Does it help you with performance? Yep! Way easier to remember those dance steps and interpret sheet music on the fly. How about survival? You bet your butt you'd better be smart trying to memorize the edible plants from the poisonous ones.
Now, that said, anyone have input on how to implement training ability scores? Should I even TRY to make rules for that or should I just leave it alone?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
I have had many Honors students take my class and do poorly. Their parents frequently contact me in shock. There are different types of learning (kinesthtic, tactile, etc.).
I'm also not a fan of setting up a rule that gives anyone advantage over anyone else (15% or otherwise). Don't go crazy with running the sims on my account. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
This post has potentially manipulated dice roll results.
Ah! I got it! One simple change that I think will make everyone happy on this.
When training, you roleplay out whatever activity that will help build up your character's skill. Gaining proficiency is like hitting a target; your tutor rolls 1D20+their current proficiency bonus and subtracts that from 30. This is the 'learning curve' target that your character will have to hit. Your character then rolls 1D20+the Reverent Ability Score bonus to the skill they're trying to learn OR their INT bonus, whichever is higher. they have as well as any existing proficiency bonuses. If they 'miss' the learning curve, they don't manage to grasp the training exercise for that day. If they 'hit' the learning curve, they then get to roll for 'skill points' as if they were rolling damage. Each day, the tutor rolls a new 'learning curve' target. After all, even teachers have off days.
This will go for practice, as well. Use your relevant ability score bonus OR your INT bonus, whichever is higher. Being smart should still let you learn quicker, but natural talent means a lot too.
Ultimately though, you're still going to have to spend a fair chunk of time practicing and training to learn a new skill or improve your proficiency with it.
Using this model, this is a simulation for say, an unusually built, physically powerful but overly chunky and scholarly level 1 monk who wants to gain proficiency in using lock picks because punching things open has proven problematic for the party. While the monk is burly and not the most dexterous, having proficiency with thieves' tools would mean he could assist the party rogue in picking locks.
The monk befriends an old cat burglar and pledges to help her reclaim an old treasure stolen from her by her old partner. This tutor would be considered a 'medium' grade teacher with +4 to using thieves tools.
Day 1: Teacher's roll: 18 Learning curve: 23. Monk's roll (Using +3 because of the monk's higher INT bonus than DEX): 9 no skill points gained.
Day 2: Teacher's roll: 19 Learning curve: 8 Monk's roll: 15 no skill points gained. Day 3: Teacher's roll: 12 Learning curve: 14 Monk's roll: 11 that's a 'hit'. Skill points earned (Again using INT over DEX): 9 Day 4: Teacher's roll: 9 Learning curve: 18 Monk's roll: 5 another 'hit'. Skill points earned: 8 Day 5: Teacher's roll: 17 Learning curve: 18 Monk's roll: 13 another 'hit'. Skill points: 6 Day 6: Teacher's roll: 6 Learning curve: 6 Monk's roll: 22 another hit. Skill points: 7 Day 7: Teacher's roll: 19 Learning curve: 13 Monk's roll: 13 no points.
So, after a week's worth of training (And some frankly very lucky rolls there, quite a few 20's doing work) the monk ends up with 22 skill points. Probably by the second week, they'll have earned enough skill points to get a +1 proficiency with thieves' tools, which probably won't really help him open any doors given his generally unimpressive dexterity, but he can now assist the party rogue.
Given that the average learning curve that the tutor will give the monk is 16 and the monk has a +3 modifier to apply, there's a 40% chance of success every roll that will net on average 6 skill points. Over the course a week, that should average about 9 skill points if my math is correct. I'm mostly ballparking in my head here, I haven't actually worked it out.
EDIT: I got that backwards. The average should be 16 skill points earned a week.
So, on average, with a VERY gifted student and a proficient teacher, it will take about 2 weeks to earn a +1 to proficiency with thieves' tools and 200GP, which, I think is still a pretty fair price to pay to give the rogue advantage when picking locks because there's almost no chance that the monk would be able to pick any lock that wouldn't be easier to just break given his strength. To get to a full beginner's +2 proficiency, it'd take about a month of training and 400GP, a fair chunk of change to basically add another full skill to their sheet.
Now, ON the topic of schools, that's where I get tripped up a bit, because as Deebs pointed out, intelligence and grades are not necessarily mutual. Getting high grades doesn't really mean you're smart, it means you're good at taking tests. How many times have you heard the story of a genius kid who dropped out of high school and opened a technology-based business because they were bored and found testing trivial?
Now, that said, I would think that school should be the option for players less inclined to engage with NPC's or are strapped for time and just want a chance to beef up a character without thinking too hard about it. I'm thinking it should be the 'throw money at it and roll' option. In that case, I'd just expand the existing rules for learning new tool/language proficiencies to general skills and increase the cost a bit, then you roll 4D10 to see how many skill points you earn for your time in class. Given the variables that are present in a public learning environment, I would say that no modifiers are at play. Pay your cash, roll the dice, see if you get enough points to gain proficiency. Simple but expensive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
I'm not so sure about the school option and I think you overly simplify good grades. That said, I think the rules for gaining new skills works but would suggest giving the player a +1 to their roll per week since repetition does help. It's hard to get training day after day, week after week, and not learn something :).
Because of the very different experiences people have in schools, I'm reluctant to offer any kind of modifiers for sending your character into a 'rabbit hole' for a certain amount of time. Having school be the 'throw money and dice' option seems like a fair trade off since roleplaying out each and every day of class is less D&D and more Hogwarts. I mean, not that you CAN'T center your campaign around an academy, but it's generally not what people think of when they think D&D, yanno? There should always be an option for less creative players to try and buff their characters if that's what they want to get out of playing, and going to school seems like it would be the least interesting method unless ALL the characters are at the same academy for the same purpose.
I'm also reluctant to offer additional bonuses from time if only because I'm concerned with it being too easy to learn and improve skills. I really like how the current rules for skill building FEEL but we're going to have to actually use them in the campaign to tell 100% if they're balanced or not.
and yet you felt like giving them more HP to make sure they wouldn'T go down.
so why would anyone in your game not be reckless considering you just literally told them, they shouldn'T be going down at all. because that sucks... this is what pretty much everyone is telling you in this thread.
everybody is telling me that their game is very very veryvery very different from mine, but i dont think thats true, i think saying that is just meaning one thing... your thinking that my players are different or act different from yours... but reality is... they don't... i've had about 30 groups of players going from 1 to 15 players per group... thats over 100 people i played with... pretty much all of them i can categorise in 3 types of players... i have yet to see any wildly different playing groups... so i doubt your group to be that different from mines... that leads me to think that argument everyone is giving me, is just a cope out mechanism to say "i hate what you are saying and i dont want you to speak anymore" but hey... you asked for opinions the very moment you wrote this on the forum...
i'm just saying...
i don't think that system of yours is any better then playing the game as is.
again...
instead of letting the dice roll as they were... you were the DM... you could of done something about it.
but you decided to just give your players more life and thus telling them, you'll never go down in this game, cause being down in PBP sucks.
instead of making a whole new system about it... i would play the drawback but go forward method. which do not require giving more life to a player.
like instead of leting him go down to 0 hp... you could of said, i'm gonna let you stay at 1 hp, prone, but alive and conscious... but yoiu are now injured and something bad will happen if this doesn't finish soon enough. and that would be it for that one...
but hey, its your call...
give them twice their life if you truly want that to be... but just telling you... if i was one of those players... i'd become very careless considering you'd just have gave me twice my life.
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)
err, as I have said before, the earlier form of the Boromir Rule was never implemented. For that matter, the second version hasn't either. Some of my other players had similar concerns and that's why they're not being used. You're harping on about a homebrew that I had already reconsidered using months ago.
That's why this is a WORKSHOP, this is for fine tuning and getting opinions on rules so things aren't unbalanced/not fun/overly complicated, especially in the arena of PBP. You seem to have made a lot of assumptions without knowing the context. As I've been saying, this thread was made in response to a campaign that ended due to several players having a run of very bad luck to playtest POSSIBLE new rules to act as a check against uncooperative dice ONLY, but NONE of them have been used as of yet.
My current campaign is running well so far, but I want to have balanced and fair additional rules waiting in the wings SHOULD things go sideways in future campaigns with players who want me to 'play it straight' and use the dice roller in-thread thanks to abysmal RNG.
I would NOT suddenly throw homebrew rules at my players without unanimous consent and certainly not rules I haven't playtested or at least simulated first.
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
Why are you being a sarcastic #*@#? If this conversation isn't for you, if you don't think these changes are good ideas, just say so and move on. No one needs, or wants, to read your sarcasm.
Tandor the White, Human Life Cleric
I can see players being reckless as a problem in some games ... but the campaign setting (a major emphasis on role playing and character building) does not lend itself to characters who have spent all this time building a personality/history plus relationships (or lack of) with other characters just jump off a cliff because they ‘can’t die’.That type of game by nature doesn’t attract the reckless sort.
The DM is workshopping ways to keep players invested in their hard work- not creating overpowered characters who don’t suffer consequences. If your theory of running a PBP is Apples to her Oranges, thanks for your opinion. No need to beat a dead horse.
As a player in that campaign I appreciate the concern the DM has for keeping her players invested. Do we always agree on rules? Nope. But the end product of discussion is to find a middle ground we can all live with. It’s a great campaign- it’s got great players who dig the storyline and enjoy playing. Nothing about any of that is broke. A player trying to act up and ‘take advantage’ of that concern sounds like pretty much a crap player. Thankfully that has not been our experience.
Fleabag Fleabane -Tabaxi Ranger | Lenny Coggins- Halfling Barbarian | Sid Shatterbuckle- Dwarf Fighter/Rogue| Lazlo - Satyr Bard in Training
This is the most ignorant,unthoughful,idioitic,Arrogant and downright disrespectful thing i have ever seen.You can never win an arugument thinking the enemy is a idiot with no real points simply because you have no point yourself.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
i'll ignore that first part of yours...
but my point was simple...
would it change your play style if you had more hit points ?
i know it would for me.
now one of the player just said, the game isn't about combat...
pretty much the only way to die in the game is because of combat... so one has to wonder now... whats the point of making a combat mechanic in a game that has barely any combat ?
in any cases, i gave my concern for it... my opinion on it... now if the person wants to bash me in saying im wrong, then be my guess... but asking people for opinions and then expecting them to just accept your stuff as good, is pretty much as idiotic as what you are saying.
just saying people... when i post on this forum i expect people to have a say int he matter and i do take into account what others say. i love discussion... but being told im wrong and stupid because i'm not agreeing is pretty much idiotic as well. just food for thought.
for the others in the thread...
i understand your point and if your players love it, then so be it... thats the whole point of a game, for everyone to love whats hapenning...
if it works for you then i'm happy for you...
but i fear most of the people who would play the game would play very very differently if they get twice their amount of HP. i know i would play differently...
so if i would do that, its obvious others would too. but again, if it works for you, so be it, have fun ! thats the point.
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)
Dude! I already said I haven't implemented the rule because the other players had similar reservations about adding too many homebrew rules and I wouldn't force homebrew without unanimous consent! Jeez. The original post about the old Boromir Rule was from friggin January, I changed my mind about it a WHILE ago. Calm your butt.
I'm just working out rules to adopt SHOULD THE NEED ARISE. Hopefully it won't come to that because the current campaign I have running is going fine so far.
That's why this is a workshop, so I can playtest and simulate and get feedback so any homebrew rules I add are appropriate for enriching player experience, not just 'cause I said so'.
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
You love discussion? Then why the massive sarcasm?
Tandor the White, Human Life Cleric
Things like this is why are wish dnd beyond had a downvote option
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
So, thanks to Firecat's help, I'd like to propose the following rules for learning new skills or refining learned skills after you all hit level 1 for the campaign as the mechanics seem to work at a desirable pace:
Hiring a tutor:
When you have a tutor, whether they be a friend, associate, or actually hired, and they have at least 2 more proficiency points in a skill than you do, they can train your character in gaining proficiency with a skill. For balance purposes, friends who are within 2 experience levels of you count as 'low end' tutors. If they're 2 or more experience levels higher than you, they're 'medium' tutors, and 5+ experience levels higher are 'high end' tutors. Each day of training will take 8 hours (You do not need to roleplay out the entire day) at the end of which, you may roll a CON save to determine if you have level 1 exhaustion afterwards or not. You may not train more than once per day. There's only so much you can cram into your brain each day and actually retain.
In general, low end tutors will cost 50 GP for a week's worth of training or will be free, if they are true friends. Medium tutors will cost 100 GP a week, and high end tutors will cost 150GP a week.
When training, you roleplay out whatever activity that will help build up your character's skill. Gaining proficiency is like hitting a target; your tutor rolls 1D20+their current proficiency bonus and subtracts that from 30. This is the 'learning curve' target that your character will have to hit. Your character then rolls 1D20+any INT or associated Ability Score bonus they have as well as any existing proficiency bonuses, whichever is higher. If they 'miss' the learning curve, they don't manage to grasp the training exercise for that day. If they 'hit' the learning curve, they then get to roll for 'skill points' as if they were rolling damage.
Each day, the tutor rolls a new 'learning curve' target. After all, even teachers have off days.
The number of skill points you gain depends on the quality of the tutor. A low end tutor will give you 1D4+INT/AS modifier skill points, a medium tutor 1D6+INT/AS mod, and high end, 1D8+INT/AS mod.
It takes 30 skill points to gain+1 proficiency, another 30 for +2, 60 for +3, 90 for +4, and so on. The more skilled you are, the more you have to train to improve.
If you don't want to roleplay out the actual training sessions (Though doing so may introduce a greater bond between yourself and your instructor) you can simply roll like you're engaged in combat to see how many skill points you earn throughout the week training with your tutor.
Personal practice:
The effectiveness of your personal practice is determined largely by your character's intelligence or natural ability. Even if not particularly gifted in the requisite ability score associated with the skill being practiced, a high intelligence will allow a character to retain the knowledge gained through practice much more efficiently.
Your DM will determine what resources will be consumed by your character practicing and how much it costs per day to replenish those resources. When performing personal practice, your character must be in good condition, have full HP, and no status ailments. Your character must be able to focus all their attention on their practice, and again, can roll a CON save afterwards to avoid exhaustion.
Your character must devote 8 hours to practice a day. You then roll 1D4+INT bonuses to see how many chances you get that day to beat a DC 15 + current proficiency bonus skill check. Your current proficiency bonus is added to the difficulty class because the more skilled you are, the harder it is to improve. You gain as many skill points that day as the number of times you manage to beat the skill check.
Personal practice is costly and its effectiveness is more inconsistent than a tutor, but trial and error is still a viable means of learning.
School:
.... I need to figure one out still, but it should be an option as well.
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
I'm not crazy about a player using their Intelligence as a modifier for everything. Your taking one classes dump stat and making it pretty pivotal to learning. If a wizard with high intelligence learns athletics they may grasp the concept quicker than a lunkhead- but putting it into practice? Why not use the ability score modifier for the skill type? (Int for Investigation, Dex for Acrobatics, Wis for Insight, Cha for Persuasion, etc.).
Fleabag Fleabane -Tabaxi Ranger | Lenny Coggins- Halfling Barbarian | Sid Shatterbuckle- Dwarf Fighter/Rogue| Lazlo - Satyr Bard in Training
I might be a little biased here but, actually, that's a valid point. Theory is not everything. On the other hand, it is part of the deal. You can't learn to swim without getting into the water at least once, but you'll most likely drown eventually if not taught the effective, not-tiring methods.
Perhaps a combination of Int and the applicable AS modifier? This would still make brighter characters have an easier time learning skills, while allowing naturally skilled ones to learn even without being particularly bright. The question that comes up, however, is what happens when you're trying to learn an Int-based skill. Double bonus or nah?
Varielky
I agree with this. It applies to all skills, really. I may learn the skills to be suave and debonair but if I’m still an arrogant jerk, I’m still an arrogant jerk and my low CHA is what I have to work with.
Tandor the White, Human Life Cleric
I wouldn't call INT pivotal to learning, but being smart definitely makes it easier to learn, especially if you're having to teach yourself through trial and error. Unless you're a genius with 18 INT, even a character with 10 INT would, on average, learn far faster by studying under a very skilled master instead of a teammate. Paying a good teacher will be on average way, way more consistent than trying to learn on the cheap.
For practice, a very respectable +3 modifier for self-study only raises the chance of success by 15%. That's not huge. It's an advantage, but unless you have an INT penalty, chances are it's just going to take you a little longer to gain skill points than a high-INT character. It's not going to be a difference between a tortoise and a hare even if you are learning on the cheap, but smart characters SHOULD have an easier time retaining the knowledge gained through practice and study over characters who are absent-minded or lack reasoning ability.
To be sure though, I'll run some simulations to see if it would be too easy to build skills if the checks are modified by the appropriate ability score.
The main reason I was hesitant to use 'ability score specific modifiers for skill checks' is because really? Smart characters SHOULD learn faster regardless of what they're trying to learn because... well, that's what intelligence DOES for you. Does being smart help you learn athletics? Absolutely! While it might be easy to dismiss athletes as big muscleheads, quite a few professional athletes used athletic scholarships to pay for higher education. Does it help you with performance? Yep! Way easier to remember those dance steps and interpret sheet music on the fly. How about survival? You bet your butt you'd better be smart trying to memorize the edible plants from the poisonous ones.
Still, I'll do those sims. See what happens.
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
Now, that said, anyone have input on how to implement training ability scores? Should I even TRY to make rules for that or should I just leave it alone?
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
I have had many Honors students take my class and do poorly. Their parents frequently contact me in shock. There are different types of learning (kinesthtic, tactile, etc.).
I'm also not a fan of setting up a rule that gives anyone advantage over anyone else (15% or otherwise). Don't go crazy with running the sims on my account. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Fleabag Fleabane -Tabaxi Ranger | Lenny Coggins- Halfling Barbarian | Sid Shatterbuckle- Dwarf Fighter/Rogue| Lazlo - Satyr Bard in Training
Ah! I got it! One simple change that I think will make everyone happy on this.
When training, you roleplay out whatever activity that will help build up your character's skill. Gaining proficiency is like hitting a target; your tutor rolls 1D20+their current proficiency bonus and subtracts that from 30. This is the 'learning curve' target that your character will have to hit. Your character then rolls 1D20+the Reverent Ability Score bonus to the skill they're trying to learn OR their INT bonus, whichever is higher. they have as well as any existing proficiency bonuses. If they 'miss' the learning curve, they don't manage to grasp the training exercise for that day. If they 'hit' the learning curve, they then get to roll for 'skill points' as if they were rolling damage.
Each day, the tutor rolls a new 'learning curve' target. After all, even teachers have off days.
This will go for practice, as well. Use your relevant ability score bonus OR your INT bonus, whichever is higher. Being smart should still let you learn quicker, but natural talent means a lot too.
Ultimately though, you're still going to have to spend a fair chunk of time practicing and training to learn a new skill or improve your proficiency with it.
Using this model, this is a simulation for say, an unusually built, physically powerful but overly chunky and scholarly level 1 monk who wants to gain proficiency in using lock picks because punching things open has proven problematic for the party. While the monk is burly and not the most dexterous, having proficiency with thieves' tools would mean he could assist the party rogue in picking locks.
Monk's ability scores: STR: 17 DEX: 12 CON: 14 INT: 16 WIS: 17 CHA: 8
The monk befriends an old cat burglar and pledges to help her reclaim an old treasure stolen from her by her old partner. This tutor would be considered a 'medium' grade teacher with +4 to using thieves tools.
Day 1:
Teacher's roll: 18 Learning curve: 23. Monk's roll (Using +3 because of the monk's higher INT bonus than DEX): 9 no skill points gained.
Day 2: Teacher's roll: 19 Learning curve: 8 Monk's roll: 15 no skill points gained.
Day 3: Teacher's roll: 12 Learning curve: 14 Monk's roll: 11 that's a 'hit'. Skill points earned (Again using INT over DEX): 9
Day 4: Teacher's roll: 9 Learning curve: 18 Monk's roll: 5 another 'hit'. Skill points earned: 8
Day 5: Teacher's roll: 17 Learning curve: 18 Monk's roll: 13 another 'hit'. Skill points: 6
Day 6: Teacher's roll: 6 Learning curve: 6 Monk's roll: 22 another hit. Skill points: 7
Day 7: Teacher's roll: 19 Learning curve: 13 Monk's roll: 13 no points.
So, after a week's worth of training (And some frankly very lucky rolls there, quite a few 20's doing work) the monk ends up with 22 skill points. Probably by the second week, they'll have earned enough skill points to get a +1 proficiency with thieves' tools, which probably won't really help him open any doors given his generally unimpressive dexterity, but he can now assist the party rogue.
Given that the average learning curve that the tutor will give the monk is 16 and the monk has a +3 modifier to apply, there's a 40% chance of success every roll that will net on average 6 skill points. Over the course a week, that should average about 9 skill points if my math is correct. I'm mostly ballparking in my head here, I haven't actually worked it out.
EDIT: I got that backwards. The average should be 16 skill points earned a week.
So, on average, with a VERY gifted student and a proficient teacher, it will take about 2 weeks to earn a +1 to proficiency with thieves' tools and 200GP, which, I think is still a pretty fair price to pay to give the rogue advantage when picking locks because there's almost no chance that the monk would be able to pick any lock that wouldn't be easier to just break given his strength. To get to a full beginner's +2 proficiency, it'd take about a month of training and 400GP, a fair chunk of change to basically add another full skill to their sheet.
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
Now, ON the topic of schools, that's where I get tripped up a bit, because as Deebs pointed out, intelligence and grades are not necessarily mutual. Getting high grades doesn't really mean you're smart, it means you're good at taking tests. How many times have you heard the story of a genius kid who dropped out of high school and opened a technology-based business because they were bored and found testing trivial?
Now, that said, I would think that school should be the option for players less inclined to engage with NPC's or are strapped for time and just want a chance to beef up a character without thinking too hard about it. I'm thinking it should be the 'throw money at it and roll' option. In that case, I'd just expand the existing rules for learning new tool/language proficiencies to general skills and increase the cost a bit, then you roll 4D10 to see how many skill points you earn for your time in class. Given the variables that are present in a public learning environment, I would say that no modifiers are at play. Pay your cash, roll the dice, see if you get enough points to gain proficiency. Simple but expensive.
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.
I'm not so sure about the school option and I think you overly simplify good grades. That said, I think the rules for gaining new skills works but would suggest giving the player a +1 to their roll per week since repetition does help. It's hard to get training day after day, week after week, and not learn something :).
Tandor the White, Human Life Cleric
Because of the very different experiences people have in schools, I'm reluctant to offer any kind of modifiers for sending your character into a 'rabbit hole' for a certain amount of time. Having school be the 'throw money and dice' option seems like a fair trade off since roleplaying out each and every day of class is less D&D and more Hogwarts. I mean, not that you CAN'T center your campaign around an academy, but it's generally not what people think of when they think D&D, yanno? There should always be an option for less creative players to try and buff their characters if that's what they want to get out of playing, and going to school seems like it would be the least interesting method unless ALL the characters are at the same academy for the same purpose.
I'm also reluctant to offer additional bonuses from time if only because I'm concerned with it being too easy to learn and improve skills. I really like how the current rules for skill building FEEL but we're going to have to actually use them in the campaign to tell 100% if they're balanced or not.
DM, professional illustrator and comic artist, suffering from severe spinal stenosis, married, middle aged, and nerdy.