5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong

[squeen]

Also, while flipping through the LotFP text I stumbled on to a few other tidbits. Honestly, the fascade of LotFP is quite off-putting to me---gore, sexuality, etc.---but there is a fairly nice codification of some of the stickier things in B/X. It is better thought out than I expected.

Here's some "house rules" I kind of liked (I know some are not unique to LotFP):



Silver Weapons




Melee Options




I would be curious about how these particular things are handled in alternate systems (e.g. 5e), if folks would care to chime in.

 

[squeen]

Here's a couple of more rulings that came to me just now.

For your consideration:
-------

Fighting with a Torch:
Using a torch to strike an opponent has a 1 in 6 chance of igniting combustibles upon a successful hit, but also a 2 in 6 chance of extinguishing (even for a miss).

I typically use a save for ignition of combustibles when attacking with a flaming sword, so maybe it's a save instead of 1 in 6. But a save is level-dependent and that seems counter-intuitive. What do other folks use?

Similarly, fighting melee while holding a lantern: there should be chance of it extinguishing, spilling oil, or dropping it.

I kinda like the idea of plunging everyone into darkness when the fighting starts---more motivation for dedicated torch-bearing henchmen.

Spell Casting while holding a staff
If the spell is interrupted by a direct attack, the caster drops the staff (50%?).
(This combines nicely with the stuff above about a staff being a two-handed weapon, and the cost of readying/retrieving a weapon. Also, there was one lesser-known rule about dropping held weapons in 1e when surprised...but I can't recall it right now.)

LotFP also states Elves can cast spells with just one free hand, but Magic Users need two.

Poop!
...I had a third one. I think it was really good, but I forgot it and can't recall now.

--------
DISCLAIMER:
I know these are the kind of nit-picky "hassle" rules that DP dislikes because it ruins the fast-paced flow and off-the-cuff rulings of his game. But honestly, I am always looking for little ways to force my players into weighing pros and cons of a particular action, just as they are always looking for ways to maximize advantage in the system.

 

[squeen]

Oh! I remembered it now!!

------

Counter-Spell
A Magic-user can declare at the start of a round the he or she will counter-spell against another spell-caster's magic. For this to be successfully attempted, the enemy-spell's casting time must extend into the segment in which the MU would normally act (based on initiative differential). Some TBD mechanism (involving level-difference, intelligence modifiers, spell-level and a d20 roll) determines if the spell is negated. Also (and this is the nasty part I rather like), there is a finite chance of a random memorized spell at or below the level of the negated spell being erased from the couter-spelling magic-user's mind.

Maybe also a chance of the spell going haywire is some way...
------

Whatcha think?

 

[squeen]

One more...

Weapon In-Hand
I am think of requiring the players to explicitly state what weapon is "in-hand". I'll assume none while resting or traveling normally. They can declare it when entering a dungeon (e.g. "I draw my sword") and it will stick until the next rest stop. While resting, only the players "on guard" can have a readied weapon. What I don't want is to add it to some character sheet slot that I constantly fail to update and the player's can use absent mindedly. I think declaring it should become a nice little "routine" for them that just takes a second, but has a minor consequence if overlooked.

Players gotta play, not just "recreate".

Again, looking for tips on what works for others.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

DISCLAIMER:
I know these are the kind of nit-picky "hassle" rules that DP dislikes because it ruins the fast-paced flow and off-the-cuff rulings of his game. But honestly, I am always looking for little ways to force my players into weighing pros and cons of a particular action, just as they are always looking for ways to maximize advantage in the system.

Whenever I want to push players into considering alternative actions, I tend to offer them up situations in-game where the consequences/advantages of their choices are apparent, rather than re-tooling the game's mechanics to "edge" them towards doing things I want them to consider.

For instance, if I wanted them to actually use a torch in combat (for whatever reason), I make sure to mention that their opponent is wearing "fuzzy burlap which looks dangerously flammable" or "wooden armor, mostly made from kindling-grade sticks" or some such thing.

The benefits are three-fold: they do the thing I'm gently edging them to do, they feel like they've "figured out" a clever way to defeat the enemy (even though I made it obvious), and I don't have to hard-code some new rules which will inevitably be forgotten the next time it comes up months afterwards.

 

[squeen]

Ack. I am in a mood.

Here's another question/ruling:

Undead Turing
I am thinking of a mod such that "turned" undead are held "at bay" for as long as the cleric concentrates. This take the cleric's full-round action to maintain and can be interuppted by a successful attack. If the undead table indicates "Destroyed", that gets down-graded to "flees" in most cases---and banishing/destroying undead becomes possible only at very high levels---possibly using a spell/ceremony/process.

EDIT: Should the undead affected get a saving throw against being detroyed?

 

[squeen]

Whenever I want to push players into considering alternative actions, I tend to offer them up situations in-game where the consequences/advantages of their choices are apparent, rather than re-tooling the game's mechanics to "edge" them towards doing things I want them to consider.

For instance, if I wanted them to actually use a torch in combat (for whatever reason), I make sure to mention that their opponent is wearing "fuzzy burlap which looks dangerously flammable" or "wooden armor, mostly made from kindling-grade sticks" or some such thing.

The benefits are three-fold: they do the thing I'm gently edging them to do, they feel like they've "figured out" a clever way to defeat the enemy (even though I made it obvious), and I don't have to hard-code some new rules which will inevitably be forgotten the next time it comes up months afterwards.

Understood, but I am not edging them towards anything. I am just trying to lay down some (consistent) ground rule for some corner cases in a balanced way.

My players like to breeze over things---especially when it accomplishes their goals exdepiciously. Giving them what they "want" is not synomous with "playing a fun game". The little hassles are also little puzzles to be solved and overcome, and they most often lead to fun. We don't want to play all our video games with the cheat code because deep down we enjoy a challenge.

Remember, I'm an OD&D player/DM (call it 0.5e)---(fair) house rules are generally encouraged and even necessary. (...and I'm in the mood to tinker!)

@DP: Thanks!

 

[gandalf_scion]

Ack. I am in a mood.

Here's another question/ruling:

Undead Turing
I am thinking that "turned" undead are held "at bay" for as long as the cleric concentrates. This take the cleric's full-round action to maintain and can be interuppted by a successful attack. If the undead table indicates "Destroyed", that gets down-graded to "flees" in most cases---and banishing/destroying undead becomes possible only at very high levels---possibly using a spell/ceremony/process.

Turned undead flee. The particulars vary by edition, but LL says this, "Turned undead will leave the area
by any means they can, and will not attempt to harm or make contact with the cleric." Hence they move away and there's no need for further clerical concentration - fire and forget to have effect. Destroyed undead are blown to bits; in LL a 6th level cleric can do that to 1HD undead.

 

[gandalf_scion]

Because GS keeps saying the LotFP weapons vs. AC are good, I grabbed the art-free (complimentary) PDF from the web.
Here's all that I could find:

View attachment 112
View attachment 113

While this is decent, I guess I was hoping for something more.
@gandalf_scion: Is this what you were referring to?

Yes, them are those. This is the most concise and purest distillation of essential differences available. Take a look at the pole arm entry, great summary of what makes that underused weapon so useful. Compare that to "weapon, minor" and you'll see a huge easy-to-implement difference between daggers and pole arms. This goes beyond mere damage dice without the table of 1e AC adjustments.

 

[squeen]

Turned undead flee. The particulars vary by edition, but LL says this, "Turned undead will leave the area
by any means they can, and will not attempt to harm or make contact with the cleric." Hence they move away and there's no need for further clerical concentration - fire and forget to have effect. Destroyed undead are blown to bits; in LL a 6th level cleric can do that to 1HD undead.

I get that but I think, in general, the cleric turning power was felt to be too broad in early editions---making undead fairly toothless as a threat.

I am looking for a reasonable way to blunt that a bit without gimping things like Gygax did in B2 (zombies wearing amulets of protection from good).

I also have this quaint image in my head of a cleric keeping vampires at bay by brandishing a cross.

 

[gandalf_scion]

I get that but I think, in general, the cleric turning power was felt to be too broad in early editions---making undead fairly toothless as a threat.

I am looking for a reasonable way to blunt that a bit without gimping things like Gygax did in B2 (zombies wearing amulets of protection from good).

I also have this quaint image in my head of a cleric keeping vampires at bay by brandishing a cross.

This and your expressed interest in weapon vs. armor mods leads me to believe that 1e (or B/X) is the solution to your "basket" of issues? As I recall, in 1e 1st clerics have something like a 50% chance to turn skeletons, by no means guaranteed. Think about it, one of every two attempts will fail. Ergo, two encounters means one group gets through! So, the easiest solution seems to be increasing the "volume" of undead. Barrowmaze did that AND raised the needed roll by one point to address the concern you express.

 

[Slick]

Also, I don't remember if it explicitly works this way in BX/AD&D, but I always interpreted Turn Undead to work similar to the Sleep spell in that the lowest HD creatures are affected first. So part of your concern about clerics being overpowered can be mitigated by giving powerful undead a contingent of underling scrubs.

 

[gandalf_scion]

"I also have this quaint image in my head of a cleric keeping vampires at bay by brandishing a cross."

That's what a failed turn attempt looks like with one-minute combat rounds. You'll recall that in later movies, the vampire scoffs at such shenanigans and swats that cross aside while closing in on the hapless cleric!

 

[Malrex]

Seems like there needs to be a more creative way to "deal" with turning besides just throwing more underlings in there or raising the number of the undead chance (i.e. gimping the cleric's turning ability because the place is so 'evil' or whatever). On one hand...it's ok for the cleric to be a hero and do some turning...that's part of their job..and gimping that is going to make a frustrated player. On the other hand, the DM can get frustrated with all the monsters fleeing and/or bored players because everything flees and nothing to fight or whatever. Turning is a tool that breaks balance...and it seems the only way to balance it is to add more undead which just seems wrong/lazy solution to me or gimping the turning ability which is lame for a player.

Undead are such a classic monster. I haven't used them much in my published works because I don't like adding the expected. That's hard because undead can almost make sense going anywhere and finding things to throw in a tomb besides undead can be challenging. Going into a tomb? Undead!!! No??!!...something different?! what the hell?! oh crap, why am I hauling all these holy waters around...

But also, the 'turning' situation....how to keep the turning ability still cool and useful but still get that 'scary' vibe with weaker undead. Skeletons and even zombies are cool!! But hardly any players are scared of them as they are easily dealt with. Variations of them are neat and I think is a step forward to finding a solution to keep that balance between turning and keeping things challenging.

What? Oh..you are talking about 5e? Sorry...just rambling and thinking to myself....

 

[squeen]

That's why I was thinking "hold at bay" instead of the undead fleeing---the cleric gets to do something heroic and special, it just isn't permanent (ends when they stop).

Funny---I thought it would be the Counter-spell action that generated all the buzz. Shows you what little I know.

 

[EOTB]

I don't think players get bored when something that's pass/fail, and rolled, passes. If the environment is the prize, the monsters are the obstacle. Sometimes players beat the obstacle quickly and easily, and can dive right into the honey pot (or at least - more easily than otherwise). This usually makes them happy. Other times they can't, and it's then up to the other classes to win a different way.

Yes, players enjoy some combat - ideally in cool situations. Turning helps clear the trash.

Edit - the good chances of high level clerics are also partially mitigative of level drain. Which even the small possibility of is terrifying. It all works together off the principle that players should have a 70% chance of success while in their mind they feel it's really 30%.

 

[squeen]

EOTB reminds me that "all is well"---just let the cleric be a cleric.

...or to put it another way...

"You fool! Do not attempt any of your ham-fisted tinkering on such a complex mechanism!"

(sigh) Guess I'm a mean DM at heart.

 

[Malrex]

I don't think players get bored when something that's pass/fail, and rolled, passes. If the environment is the prize, the monsters are the obstacle. Sometimes players beat the obstacle quickly and easily, and can dive right into the honey pot (or at least - more easily than otherwise). This usually makes them happy. Other times they can't, and it's then up to the other classes to win a different way.

Yes, players enjoy some combat - ideally in cool situations. Turning helps clear the trash.

Edit - the good chances of high level clerics are also partially mitigative of level drain. Which even the small possibility of is terrifying. It all works together off the principle that players should have a 70% chance of success while in their mind they feel it's really 30%.

I think I have it stuck in my head as a player long ago while playing a fighter that I did get extremely bored. Enter room, everyone looks at cleric, they turn, we keep moving. Just writing that scenario makes me think that maybe Turning isn't an issue necessarily but the monster layout of the dungeon. And again..that can be tough to have some sort of living creature that is immune to turning that can survive in a area surrounded by undead....usually resorts to statues/golems....or clerics that are controlling the undead. Just rambling...I'm starting to think about a tomb adventure in Vermilion and a lot of this is running in my head.

 

[Malrex]

Funny---I thought it would be the Counter-spell action that generated all the buzz. Shows you what little I know.

I think the counter-spell action is actually brilliant and to be honest, I feel that D&D sorta dropped the ball on that. Granted, its been awhile since reading the books from cover to cover, but I don't remember a section off hand about counterspelling and discussing any rules about it. To me, this is one of the main reasons a mage should be with the party--to combat other spellcasters. And there are some spells that work perfectly--enemy is casting magic missile? then cast Shield...its a little more defensive casting then counter-spell, but I put it in the same bag except the mechanics aren't really there for D&D. They tried I think with Spellcraft in 2e, where a mage can determine what magic might be in use, but for counterspelling to work, it seems that it needs to be instant so that the other mage can plan accordingly. Instead of my character casting Resist Fire on themselves and wondering if they will get in a fire scenario, it would be cooler to see the enemy begin to cast fireball and then cast Resist Fire.

Anyways, those rules you stated above sound kinda cool to me. While fighters can attempt to use terrain to their advantage or working in duo's (shieldman and a spearman in back, or dwarf/halfling in front, bowman in back, etc.) the mage could have their own strategic battle with spells....But again with D&D, you have to memorize your spells first, so you don't really have an idea of what kind of counterspell battle you could get in too...

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I don't remember a section off hand about counterspelling and discussing any rules about it.

3rd edition had distinct counterspelling rules - you'd use an Arcana check to identify the spell, then essentially "burn" one of your prepared spells at the same level to negate the enemy's spell... though my players always had a habit of forgetting that it was an option at their disposal.

Also some spells were direct counters to other spells and could be cast to negate them (Light spell counteracts darkness spell, harm spell counteracts heal spell, slow counteracts haste, and so on).