Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[D&D 5E] Where the rolls are made up and the dice don't matter!

1484951535456

Posts

  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    edited March 17
    Dronus86 wrote: »
    I really do enjoy this conversation. It's nice to peak behind other people's screens every once in a while, and see their thought process.

    As a side note, did I overlook something? Can Shield Master knock prone? I thought it was only forced movement.

    Agreed, I enjoy talking with other GMs about how they do things, especially when everybody doesn't agree about everything.

    And yes, you can knock prone with shield master. The feat does this:

    * If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
    * Can add the shield's AC bonus to DEX saves that only target you
    * You can use your reaction to take 0 dmg from a DEX save forcing effect that normally does half damage on a successful save.

    But specifically, the shove part of it is what your question is about. Shoving can do two things, both only to creatures one size above you or smaller: Push them 5 feet away, or knock them prone. This comes from page 96 of the 5E SRD, or in the combat chapter of the PHB under "Shoving a Creature"

    Typically it takes one of your attacks to do a special shove so it's not worth it to give up damage, but that's the beauty of shield master, it lets you make the attempt as a bonus action.

    It's a fantastic feat for shield using fighters/paladins because DEX is a trash save for them usually and dragon breaths hurt.

    Barbarians who go bear totem with a shield for ultimate tankiness benefit from this as well, because rage also gives them advantage on the STR check to shove. Conversely, if you have a warlock in your party, ask them to HEX the STR or DEX of the target you want to constantly shove down and give them disadvantage on their roll to resist it.

    Joshmvii on
    Fuselage
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    I also don't believe rule zero means the GM of a game should lie to the players to do what they think is best. If you were playing with me and my table, you'd actually be making the situation worse for all involved(except you) if you were ignoring the dice rolls to do what you thought was best for the scene, so that's not rule zero at all.


    How?

    If I roll 20 behind a screen and decided, no I'm not going to gib the wizard in the opening round with that critical hit, and make it a regular hit; how does that make the game worse for you and everyone else than if I had rolled an 18? What if I actually rolled a 17 which hit, but my contacts were bothering me and read it as an 11 that missed? Or I did my addition wrong and should have hit for 28 damage dropping a player instead of 27 leaving them up? Do those worsen it as much?

    Or let me ask it this way. Last week Friday your party had a combat encounter, sans any fudging, that you found moderately enjoyable. Not a bad encounter, or a great one just a solid middle of the pack one.

    Are you maintaining that every other potential permutation of that combat encounter are all less enjoyabe than the way it played out for you?

    Or just that an action the DM may take that you are unaware of shifting you from one of those to an other intrinsically makes the experience worse through some sort of meta-physical means?

  • Dronus86Dronus86 Now with cheese!Registered User regular
    Interesting. Very cool! I misread the feat and thought it was implying you could shove someone 5 feet, rather than shoving someone WITHIN 5 feat.

    Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become.
    Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    edited March 17
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    I also don't believe rule zero means the GM of a game should lie to the players to do what they think is best. If you were playing with me and my table, you'd actually be making the situation worse for all involved(except you) if you were ignoring the dice rolls to do what you thought was best for the scene, so that's not rule zero at all.

    How?

    If I roll 20 behind a screen and decided, no I'm not going to gib the wizard in the opening round with that critical hit, and make it a regular hit; how does that make the game worse for you and everyone else than if I had rolled an 18? What if I actually rolled a 17 which hit, but my contacts were bothering me and read it as an 11 that missed? Or I did my addition wrong and should have hit for 28 damage dropping a player instead of 27 leaving them up? Do those worsen it as much?

    Or let me ask it this way. Last week Friday your party had a combat encounter, sans any fudging, that you found moderately enjoyable. Not a bad encounter, or a great one just a solid middle of the pack one.

    Are you maintaining that every other potential permutation of that combat encounter are all less enjoyabe than the way it played out for you?

    Or just that an action the DM may take that you are unaware of shifting you from one of those to an other intrinsically makes the experience worse through some sort of meta-physical means?

    We've already covered everything relevant here, but I'll play:

    How? Because if I know you're ignoring the results of the dice to do whatever you want, I would not want to play in the game because you've made the dice feel pointless to me. And if I don't know, then you're lying to me about the type of game you're running and I'll be doubly angry when I find out.

    If I roll 20 behind a screen and decided, no I'm not going to gib the wizard in the opening round with that critical hit, and make it a regular hit; how does that make the game worse for you and everyone else than if I had rolled an 18?
    I'd wonder why a single crit from full health instantly killed any PC, but I'd accept it. If you told me you decided to not make it a crit, I'd once again feel like we should just put the dice down if we're not going to accept the results.

    What if I actually rolled a 17 which hit, but my contacts were bothering me and read it as an 11 that missed? Then you made a mistake. If you caught it before you announced the miss then you tell them it hit. If you caught it after telling them it missed, then you tell them you made a mistake and move on, but I wouldn't undo your mistake. I'd just try not to do it again.

    Or I did my addition wrong and should have hit for 28 damage dropping a player instead of 27 leaving them up? Same as immediately above.

    Last week Friday your party had a combat encounter, sans any fudging, that you found moderately enjoyable. If the actions the players took and the outcome of the dice determined the results, then it went perfectly.

    You seem to be really misunderstanding my issues. I purely want the game part of the role playing game to matter, and for me that means accepting the results of the dice when they're rolled.

    Ever played with a GM that wouldn't let bad things happen to PCs? I have, and what you get is no reason for people to care about the choices they make because the GM will let you win no matter what. Conversely, a GM that decides hitting PCs when they really miss makes me not want to invest in higher AC, defensive spells, or anything else like it. Because the GM is just deciding on a whim what hits and what misses.

    I'm no longer playing the game I want at that point. I'm playing "whatever the GM wants to happen happens." And that is not a game I'm interested in playing.

    **These opinions are mine and mine alone. I do not think they are the one right opinion or that anybody else's preferred playstyle is wrong. I do however think if you plan to ignore the dice results at GM whim, you need to tell your players so that they know that those are the stakes.

    Joshmvii on
    ElvenshaediscriderJustTee
  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    edited March 17
    Dronus86 wrote: »
    Interesting. Very cool! I misread the feat and thought it was implying you could shove someone 5 feet, rather than shoving someone WITHIN 5 feat.

    Yeah, it's easy to miss, just because shove covers both moving people 5 feet and also knocking them prone.

    Joshmvii on
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    It's definitely worth noting that if there's an explicit expectation that things are as things are it's important not to be some other way. I consider hardline no fudging ever as the "hardcore, roguelike" ruleset, in that I think most roleplayers are more invested in having fun at the table than adhering to unbending mechanics, but I play enough roguelikes personally to know that sometimes what you need is a good cold unfeeling deathblow to reinvigorate your motivation to play.

    If your table expects raw dice, and nothing but, then that's what they should get.

    I ran a game of 4e once which I described to the players I recruited as an "expert's game" where in combat I would be actively adversarial to the party and I expected them to make characters that could hang otherwise they'd die. That was pretty fun, but I recruited players specifically for that purpose so I knew everyone was on board. I would never have fudged a die roll in that game, or in a game like that.

    Dronus86AegisZomrodiscriderSlayer of Dreams
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    I figured that was default operating behaviour, though in my case, since my D&D experience has been entirely online, creating/finding a game always follows that rubric by design.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +4/1d8+2 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Dronus86Dronus86 Now with cheese!Registered User regular
    4e was so wacky and broken, particularly once you got into paragon. I miss it sometimes. But also, I don't.

    Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become.
    Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    You might not think it based on the way I post, but I've had a grant total of one PC die in all of the games I've ever GMed. I don't at all run meatgrinder style games like you expect from say DCC or whatever.

    Hell, the 13th Age game I'm running now is a super character-focused game where I will be genuinely bummed if one of the PCs dies at level 3 before they get to achieve their ambitious goals like "become the head of my knightly order," or "incite a rebellion that overthrows the corrupt goverment of my nation."

    But through talking to my players at session 0 and beyond, which I consider the most important part of the game, I found that they want combat to feel like it matters. Their feedback included things like "We don't want to lose our characters in a meat grinder, but we want the danger of PC death to be there and be real, because if it isn't, then instead of running 45 minute long combat encounters we could just narrate how we won the fight instead."

    My table has to get only the dice outcomes, because I don't roll any dice behind a screen. And I tell them the DCs of skill checks before they roll them. Etc. It's just transparency, and it's just how I run my games. Because in the distant past, I wanted to fudge things because I didn't want my friends to face bad outcomes. But I realized through talking to them and for myself that as players we all felt robbed of what we wanted out of the game when fudging happened. And that's why I don't play in a way that allows it.

    I'm never adversarial to my players, but I guess when running f20 games I always expect people to make characters that are effective. The game's rules are about combat more than anything else, so you better make sure your character can function in combat. And I really only run two types of games. Stuff like 13th Age where I am just transparent with everything, and PbtA games where I don't roll dice so it's literally impossible to fudge dice rolls for the GM. Though like I mentioned before, those games have their own fun knobs of soft/hard moves. If a PC is just getting wrecked, maybe it makes for a better story to put them in a scary spot separated from the party than it does to deal damage to them on a 6- and force a last breath roll, potentially killing them.

    But that's the beauty of PbtA, the flexibility.

  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    I've never seen anybody call 4E broken. The only complaints RE: difficulty I ever saw for that edition were it being too easy because of how it was balanced. Which was to say the GMs were running "fair" combats only and the PCs knew how to play effectively. 13th Age is the same way. I don't even bother running combats that are "fair" for 5 (currently) level 3 PCs for my table, because they are a well oiled killing machine and those combats would be a joke. So every fight is balanced as though there are 6.5-9 PCs, depending on how hard I want to crank that difficulty knob.

  • Dronus86Dronus86 Now with cheese!Registered User regular
    Well I played pretty soon after it was released, before a lot of the errata was pushed out. It mostly included abusing out of turn attacks from rogues/barbarians by being a tactical warlord.
    Also, wizard/warlock->blood mage.

    Look at me. Look at me. Look at how large the monster inside me has become.
    Crunch Crunch! Munch Munch! Chomp Chomp! Gulp!
  • A steak!A steak! Generous Glover Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    Dronus86 wrote: »
    I really do enjoy this conversation. It's nice to peak behind other people's screens every once in a while, and see their thought process.

    As a side note, did I overlook something? Can Shield Master knock prone? I thought it was only forced movement.

    Agreed, I enjoy talking with other GMs about how they do things, especially when everybody doesn't agree about everything.

    And yes, you can knock prone with shield master. The feat does this:

    * If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
    * Can add the shield's AC bonus to DEX saves that only target you
    * You can use your reaction to get evasion against DEX based saves that do half damage on a save, so no dmg on save, half on miss.

    But specifically, the shove part of it is what your question is about. Shoving can do two things, both only to creatures one size above you or smaller: Push them 5 feet away, or knock them prone. This comes from page 96 of the 5E SRD, or in the combat chapter of the PHB under "Shoving a Creature"

    Typically it takes one of your attacks to do a special shove so it's not worth it to give up damage, but that's the beauty of shield master, it lets you make the attempt as a bonus action.

    It's a fantastic feat for shield using fighters/paladins because DEX is a trash save for them usually and dragon breaths hurt.

    Barbarians who go bear totem with a shield for ultimate tankiness benefit from this as well, because rage also gives them advantage on the STR check to shove. Conversely, if you have a warlock in your party, ask them to HEX the STR or DEX of the target you want to constantly shove down and give them disadvantage on their roll to resist it.

    Unless there was an errata that I missed, Shield Master does not allow you to halve AoE damage on a failed save. You can only use your reaction to turn a save into 0 damage.

  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    edited March 17
    A steak! wrote: »
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    Dronus86 wrote: »
    I really do enjoy this conversation. It's nice to peak behind other people's screens every once in a while, and see their thought process.

    As a side note, did I overlook something? Can Shield Master knock prone? I thought it was only forced movement.

    Agreed, I enjoy talking with other GMs about how they do things, especially when everybody doesn't agree about everything.

    And yes, you can knock prone with shield master. The feat does this:

    * If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
    * Can add the shield's AC bonus to DEX saves that only target you
    * You can use your reaction to get evasion against DEX based saves that do half damage on a save, so no dmg on save, half on miss.

    But specifically, the shove part of it is what your question is about. Shoving can do two things, both only to creatures one size above you or smaller: Push them 5 feet away, or knock them prone. This comes from page 96 of the 5E SRD, or in the combat chapter of the PHB under "Shoving a Creature"

    Typically it takes one of your attacks to do a special shove so it's not worth it to give up damage, but that's the beauty of shield master, it lets you make the attempt as a bonus action.

    It's a fantastic feat for shield using fighters/paladins because DEX is a trash save for them usually and dragon breaths hurt.

    Barbarians who go bear totem with a shield for ultimate tankiness benefit from this as well, because rage also gives them advantage on the STR check to shove. Conversely, if you have a warlock in your party, ask them to HEX the STR or DEX of the target you want to constantly shove down and give them disadvantage on their roll to resist it.

    Unless there was an errata that I missed, Shield Master does not allow you to halve AoE damage on a failed save. You can only use your reaction to turn a save into 0 damage.

    Good call. I misrembered that part.

    Joshmvii on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    My current character is 0 for 3 on making the stupid save to take 0 damage :(

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +4/1d8+2 | Spell +4/DC 12
    ElvenshaeSteelhawkspool32
  • Destrokk9Destrokk9 Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    My current character is 0 for 3 on making the stupid save to take 0 damage :(

    At least you dont have Wil Wheatons dice curse.

    "Does a 19 work for you?!"

  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    My current character is 0 for 3 on making the stupid save to take 0 damage :(

    Yeah, the unfortunate part is that it's usually fighters and paladins taking shield master, with their heavy armor, no DEX mod, no proficiency in that save. So it's still hard to make the save. I just made great use of the shove people prone part of the feat to make up for the other parts failing me.

    Hell, in an entire campaign I never got to use the add the shield's AC bonus to a DEX save thing, because I never got targeted by a DEX save forcing effect that only targeted me.

  • A steak!A steak! Generous Glover Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    My current character is 0 for 3 on making the stupid save to take 0 damage :(

    Yeah, the unfortunate part is that it's usually fighters and paladins taking shield master, with their heavy armor, no DEX mod, no proficiency in that save. So it's still hard to make the save. I just made great use of the shove people prone part of the feat to make up for the other parts failing me.

    Hell, in an entire campaign I never got to use the add the shield's AC bonus to a DEX save thing, because I never got targeted by a DEX save forcing effect that only targeted me.

    There aren't many spell options, to be honest. Disintegrate, Sacred Flame, Hellish Rebuke and Chain Lightning are the only one I can think of, but there are probably more. Not sure how many monster effects there are.

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Rend wrote: »
    It's definitely worth noting that if there's an explicit expectation that things are as things are it's important not to be some other way. I consider hardline no fudging ever as the "hardcore, roguelike" ruleset, in that I think most roleplayers are more invested in having fun at the table than adhering to unbending mechanics, but I play enough roguelikes personally to know that sometimes what you need is a good cold unfeeling deathblow to reinvigorate your motivation to play.

    If your table expects raw dice, and nothing but, then that's what they should get.

    I ran a game of 4e once which I described to the players I recruited as an "expert's game" where in combat I would be actively adversarial to the party and I expected them to make characters that could hang otherwise they'd die. That was pretty fun, but I recruited players specifically for that purpose so I knew everyone was on board. I would never have fudged a die roll in that game, or in a game like that.

    Which is fine, but the table can't ever get 'raw dice, and nothing but' because the circumstances are always decided by the GM's judgment anyway. For everything from adjudicating a combat action that isn't strictly covered by the rules, to deciding whether to have a monster run away instead of fighting to the death to get a couple extra hits in, to setting DCs for in-combat skill checks, to deciding whether a monster continues attacking the fighter he's engaged with or eats an OA to attack the wounded wizard instead, the DM is adjusting the difficulty of a fight on the fly all the time.

    Being okay with the idea that the DM can have monsters choose to attack the beefy fighter instead of all piling past him to gib the squishy characters, okay with the idea that when a player says "I want to try and push this pillar over onto the bad guys" the DM can say anything from "no" to "sure, but it'll be a high DC check" to "good thinking, now that you're closer to it it looks pretty crumbly. You'll have to make a strength check, but you'll have advantage on it", okay with the idea that the DM can dictate the effects of 'pushed a pillar onto a monster' as anything from "3d6 damage" to "5d8 damage and he's stunned" to "it crushes him and he dies", okay with the fact that the DMs decisions on those things can absolutely be influenced by whether or not the DM thinks the party needs to catch a break, but not okay with the idea that the DM can turn a crit into a hit is a distinction without a difference. It doesn't create any sort of mechanically pure outcomes that aren't influenced by DM fiat, it just creates the illusion of that sort of purity.

    If that's how people prefer to play that's fine (and it is usually how I prefer to play, personally) but I don't think there's any way to frame fudging the dice as "lying to players about what kind of game you're running" without also accepting that "I don't fudge anything, this game is dictated only by its mechanics" is exactly the same kind of lie.

    JihadJesusSmrtnikRend
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    I should point out that when I cheat on the players behalf I litterally announce it by saying "fuck you I'm cheating" to the dice before re-rolling.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Nips
  • GlaziusGlazius Registered User regular
    edited March 18
    What on...? Man, I need to stop locking my phone on typable sites, I find myself doing a distressing amount of butt posting.

    Anyway, the capsule summary of my feelings that nobody's ever going to read:

    Dice exist not as a way to produce the best narrative possible, in the way that a movie director might shoot 1000 takes to get the best narrative possible, but as a way to keep the flow going, in the way that an improv troupe wants to keep the flow going.

    The purpose of the GM handing control over to the dice is to get a reasonable response to the question of "what happens next", distributed unpredictably between success and failure so that now that group has something to deal with. It's up to the GM to decide when and how to hand over control. So if you don't want to kill the wizard in the opening round, you can always just not try.

    If you're playing a game in which, like Garry's Mod, the dice can careen in any direction, either put yourself in the mindset to deal with wherever they wind up landing or play a different game. Maybe that "different game" is the game you're currently playing except the monsters can't get critical hits or have their damage rolls chain-explode or whatever? I mean, freak swings of chance benefit the one-offs and the underdogs, which generally leans more Team Monster.

    Glazius on
    JustTee
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    Yeah, I don't understand how "I subtly change that 20 into a 19" or vice versa is inherently different than "I'm going to use a basic attack instead of the more dangerous option" or "I think I'd better have a couple more dire wolves leap out of the underbrush into the action".

    In either case, the DM is pulling the levers a bit to make the encounter or series of encounters a little easier or a little harder to keep the pacing and difficulty at the right level. I guess as a player I'm just not too bothered about which lever they choose to pull.

    Smrtnik
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Yeah, I don't understand how "I subtly change that 20 into a 19" or vice versa is inherently different than "I'm going to use a basic attack instead of the more dangerous option" or "I think I'd better have a couple more dire wolves leap out of the underbrush into the action".

    In either case, the DM is pulling the levers a bit to make the encounter or series of encounters a little easier or a little harder to keep the pacing and difficulty at the right level. I guess as a player I'm just not too bothered about which lever they choose to pull.

    Similarly to this: I had my players fight a massive owlbear on sunday that hit with all three of it's attacks (2 4d6 claws and a 3d6 bite) for 59 damage; technicaly that should have been 80 since it had a +7 to damage but considering he's a level 5 druid I was legit worried about straight up killing him in the first round of combat.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    The difference for me is that I wouldn't ever have an enemy use a weaker attack when they had a stronger one available. Thankfully 13th Age is not designed that way anyway.

    I disagree that letting a player try something like pushing a pillar over to create an advantage is the same as ignoring the dice outcomes and just deciding what happens.

    If I was playing in a game like that I guess I would just tell the GM my attack rolls were hits, misses, and crits based on what I thought made for the best pacing or challenge level. If the dice don't matter for one, they might as well not matter for anybody.

  • Destrokk9Destrokk9 Registered User regular
    To any new people joining this thread, let me summarize the last several pages into a fucking nutshell:

    Some people fudge dice, others don't.

    Can we now discuss something else ASIDE FROM DICE ROLLS! Like...I don't know...Tales of the Yawning Portal not coming out fast enough?!

  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    A quick internet search seems to tell me that the slang for 'fudging' is not quite what I thought it was, but I would still try to stay away from fudging the d4s.
    Rounder dice are likely to be more comfortable, but I get off on just rolling the things, so don't let me stop you from having fun.

  • A steak!A steak! Generous Glover Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    The difference for me is that I wouldn't ever have an enemy use a weaker attack when they had a stronger one available. Thankfully 13th Age is not designed that way anyway.

    Great, post about it in the 13th age thread!

    SmrtnikGaddezSteelhawkJustTee
  • see317see317 Taco Count 2017: 42 Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    A quick internet search seems to tell me that the slang for 'fudging' is not quite what I thought it was, but I would still try to stay away from fudging the d4s.
    Rounder dice are likely to be more comfortable, but I get off on just rolling the things, so don't let me stop you from having fun.

    On the topic of D4s...
    Number on top, or number on bottom?

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    see317 wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    A quick internet search seems to tell me that the slang for 'fudging' is not quite what I thought it was, but I would still try to stay away from fudging the d4s.
    Rounder dice are likely to be more comfortable, but I get off on just rolling the things, so don't let me stop you from having fun.

    On the topic of D4s...
    Number on top, or number on bottom?

    I swing both ways.
    I mean, I guess have some aesthetic preferences, but this one has never factored into it.

    Elvenshae
  • see317see317 Taco Count 2017: 42 Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    see317 wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    A quick internet search seems to tell me that the slang for 'fudging' is not quite what I thought it was, but I would still try to stay away from fudging the d4s.
    Rounder dice are likely to be more comfortable, but I get off on just rolling the things, so don't let me stop you from having fun.

    On the topic of D4s...
    Number on top, or number on bottom?

    I swing both ways.
    I mean, I guess have some aesthetic preferences, but this one has never factored into it.

    Sorry, that's not going to be enough to get us off the dice fudging debate here.
    We need some real hell fire and brimstone opinions on something that doesn't matter at all here.

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • FuselageFuselage Bantha Three ValhallaRegistered User regular
    Next time I run a campaign I'm having my players start as members of a local courier company. They're all carrying Rings of Revivify from one magical place to another magical place. That seems like a safe start. The rings will get one charge before they turn to dust. If they don't have any rings at Magic Place 2, they don't get paid.

    Elvenshae
  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    A steak! wrote: »
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    The difference for me is that I wouldn't ever have an enemy use a weaker attack when they had a stronger one available. Thankfully 13th Age is not designed that way anyway.

    Great, post about it in the 13th age thread!

    13th Age is as much an edition of D&D as 5E is as far as I'm concerned, so I feel comfortable discussing it in this thread. Thanks.

  • A steak!A steak! Generous Glover Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    A steak! wrote: »
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    The difference for me is that I wouldn't ever have an enemy use a weaker attack when they had a stronger one available. Thankfully 13th Age is not designed that way anyway.

    Great, post about it in the 13th age thread!

    13th Age is as much an edition of D&D as 5E is as far as I'm concerned, so I feel comfortable discussing it in this thread. Thanks.

    Ha ha, no. That's not how this works at all.

    Gaddez
  • Destrokk9Destrokk9 Registered User regular
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    A steak! wrote: »
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    The difference for me is that I wouldn't ever have an enemy use a weaker attack when they had a stronger one available. Thankfully 13th Age is not designed that way anyway.

    Great, post about it in the 13th age thread!

    13th Age is as much an edition of D&D as 5E is as far as I'm concerned, so I feel comfortable discussing it in this thread. Thanks.

    So its Pathfinder for 4e fans? That is what I have been told it is apparently.

  • JoshmviiJoshmvii Registered User regular
    edited March 18
    13th Age is what you get if you have a designer from 3E and one from 4E make a game that takes the good from those editions, drops the less good from them, and add some player driven modern narrativist stuff.
    Destrokk9 wrote: »
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    A steak! wrote: »
    Joshmvii wrote: »
    The difference for me is that I wouldn't ever have an enemy use a weaker attack when they had a stronger one available. Thankfully 13th Age is not designed that way anyway.

    Great, post about it in the 13th age thread!

    13th Age is as much an edition of D&D as 5E is as far as I'm concerned, so I feel comfortable discussing it in this thread. Thanks.

    So its Pathfinder for 4e fans? That is what I have been told it is apparently.

    No. The differences from 4E to 13A are large, it's nothing like PF is to 3.5 for example. The 4E influence in 13A is mostly how GM friendly it is, the intensely easy encounter building, etc. But with a lot of improvement, better mooks, etc

    Joshmvii on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    Destrokk9 wrote: »
    To any new people joining this thread, let me summarize the last several pages into a fucking nutshell:

    Some people fudge dice, others don't.

    Can we now discuss something else ASIDE FROM DICE ROLLS! Like...I don't know...Tales of the Yawning Portal not coming out fast enough?!

    I'm excited for Tales because I plan on running my kids through it. My main group is just too large (8 people) to do lengthy dungeons, but I figure a couple of kids and we can probably get through things pretty quickly and just have fun with it. I've been running games long enough that removing monsters to make it fair for a small party should be easy enough. I can't even remember the last time I ran a proper dungeon. It might've been in the 90s.

    Destrokk9
  • Destrokk9Destrokk9 Registered User regular
    edited March 18
    Destrokk9 wrote: »
    To any new people joining this thread, let me summarize the last several pages into a fucking nutshell:

    Some people fudge dice, others don't.

    Can we now discuss something else ASIDE FROM DICE ROLLS! Like...I don't know...Tales of the Yawning Portal not coming out fast enough?!

    I'm excited for Tales because I plan on running my kids through it. My main group is just too large (8 people) to do lengthy dungeons, but I figure a couple of kids and we can probably get through things pretty quickly and just have fun with it. I've been running games long enough that removing monsters to make it fair for a small party should be easy enough. I can't even remember the last time I ran a proper dungeon. It might've been in the 90s.

    I started my DnD in 4e, but that didnt really last long. I have, however, been playing 5e since the beginning and I am very excited to see some of the classic dungeons. I am also curious to see what twists and new things they might add into the dungeons to support the current content.

    Also, Tomb of Horrors.

    Destrokk9 on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Destrokk9 wrote: »
    Destrokk9 wrote: »
    To any new people joining this thread, let me summarize the last several pages into a fucking nutshell:

    Some people fudge dice, others don't.

    Can we now discuss something else ASIDE FROM DICE ROLLS! Like...I don't know...Tales of the Yawning Portal not coming out fast enough?!

    I'm excited for Tales because I plan on running my kids through it. My main group is just too large (8 people) to do lengthy dungeons, but I figure a couple of kids and we can probably get through things pretty quickly and just have fun with it. I've been running games long enough that removing monsters to make it fair for a small party should be easy enough. I can't even remember the last time I ran a proper dungeon. It might've been in the 90s.

    I started my DnD in 4e, but that didnt really last long. I have, however, been playing 5e since the beginning and I am very excited to see some of the classic style dungeons. I am also curious to see what twists and new things they might add into the dungeons to support the current content.

    Also, Tomb of Horrors.

    I actually think ToH is something that pre-3rd edition versions would do better. 5th is lacking a bunch of really extraneous spells that basically only existed to enable wacky lateral thinking exercises. I don't think 5th really walked that area back very far from where 4th pushed it.

  • Destrokk9Destrokk9 Registered User regular
    True, but I think it can add its own charm to it. Plus, stuff will always change between editions, so who knows? Maybe they might add stuff in the appendix to help give it a little nudge to make it feel like pre-3e.

  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    see317 wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    A quick internet search seems to tell me that the slang for 'fudging' is not quite what I thought it was, but I would still try to stay away from fudging the d4s.
    Rounder dice are likely to be more comfortable, but I get off on just rolling the things, so don't let me stop you from having fun.

    On the topic of D4s...
    Number on top, or number on bottom?

    s-l300.jpg

    On the subject of fudging: one time I told a first time player that his rogue was one hit point away from permadeath when actually I'd killed his ass with a dragon attack. When the same character actually died at the hands of some ghouls a few sessions later, I let the players find a ritual scroll that would transfer vitality from an innocent into his character to revive him. That way I got to let the other players engage in a bit of roleplay as to whether they should kill the seven year old boy they were supposed to be rescuing. Interestingly they were all gung ho about it until I asked, "OK, so which one of you kills him?"

    Another successful post, thanks to the power of Spacestar Ordering™!
  • ArdentArdent Skyline Ranger UndergroundRegistered User regular
    Any thoughts on knighting ceremonies? Our group just leveled up and our paladin has done a local baron a great boon. I think he may have earned knighthood.

    The nobility in question is Frankish in influence.

    Steam ID | Origin ID: ArdentX | Uplay ID: theardent | Battle.net: Ardent#11476
    Join us on Discord for RPGs
Sign In or Register to comment.