Oh, I absolutely agree with you! I was mostly just referencing an outlandish fight that happened in the SE++ RPG thread a while back, in which the word "flour" was banned from the thread
Your post wasn't dumb, but that fight was memorably so
I...
What.
You know what? I'm better off not knowing about the flour fight. I think it's just safer for my sanity. (Though i am reminded of a differnet forum having the mod call of "Do not cast spells on other members" after one poster flamed out in spectacular fashion)
Oh, I absolutely agree with you! I was mostly just referencing an outlandish fight that happened in the SE++ RPG thread a while back, in which the word "flour" was banned from the thread
Your post wasn't dumb, but that fight was memorably so
I...
What.
You know what? I'm better off not knowing about the flour fight. I think it's just safer for my sanity. (Though i am reminded of a differnet forum having the mod call of "Do not cast spells on other members" after one poster flamed out in spectacular fashion)
The basis was that non-magical characters could use "creative thinking" to make up the gap in all those situations in D&D where they can literally do nothing but let the spellcasters fix things. It was dumb but hey, it got a wide spread abuser off the forums so it had some positive upsides!
On the subject of improvising stunts, I've thought since the 4E days that there should be a specific Power (or Action I guess in 5E) that is "Do Something Unexpected" with actual rules for how to do something unexpected. It doesn't need to be complex, but some scaffolding for everyone to use would be really swell, like what you should probably roll, what the difficulty should probably be, and what kind of damage or status effects an improvised action ought to be able to do. There's plenty of room for thinking outside the box while keeping the Game in Role Playing Game.
All of this kind of stuff has been kinda-sorta in the books for many editions already, but it's always so vague and is just like "You should let your players do crazy stuff, just become an instant game designer in that moment and balance the current situation with regular actions and of course extrapolate the lasting impacts of your ruling on the future of your game, in your head, right now."
On the subject of improvising stunts, I've thought since the 4E days that there should be a specific Power (or Action I guess in 5E) that is "Do Something Unexpected" with actual rules for how to do something unexpected. It doesn't need to be complex, but some scaffolding for everyone to use would be really swell, like what you should probably roll, what the difficulty should probably be, and what kind of damage or status effects an improvised action ought to be able to do. There's plenty of room for thinking outside the box while keeping the Game in Role Playing Game.
All of this kind of stuff has been kinda-sorta in the books for many editions already, but it's always so vague and is just like "You should let your players do crazy stuff, just become an instant game designer in that moment and balance the current situation with regular actions and of course extrapolate the lasting impacts of your ruling on the future of your game, in your head, right now."
Agreed.
I think @Whelk suggestion of having Normal/heroic/supernatural tiers of stunts with example DCs and results would be a great thing. In 5e you could also bolt it into the skill system to good effect - for instance, Fighters could get a global "You count as having expertise when stunting" to represent the fantasy of fighters ontop of the game at using their heads and bodies in concert. Barbarians could get similar for raw strength, you get the idea. Rouges already get a bunch of expertise, so they'll be naturally good at doing things like "I sleight of hand the bomb into the badguys pocket!"
On the subject of improvising stunts, I've thought since the 4E days that there should be a specific Power (or Action I guess in 5E) that is "Do Something Unexpected" with actual rules for how to do something unexpected. It doesn't need to be complex, but some scaffolding for everyone to use would be really swell, like what you should probably roll, what the difficulty should probably be, and what kind of damage or status effects an improvised action ought to be able to do. There's plenty of room for thinking outside the box while keeping the Game in Role Playing Game.
All of this kind of stuff has been kinda-sorta in the books for many editions already, but it's always so vague and is just like "You should let your players do crazy stuff, just become an instant game designer in that moment and balance the current situation with regular actions and of course extrapolate the lasting impacts of your ruling on the future of your game, in your head, right now."
That's what I'm trying to do with story points. I think you could do a rule where damage potentially scales with players, so you could do levels 1-4 1d6+level, 5-9 2d6+level, 10-14 3d6+level and 15-20 4d6+level damage, because the stunts your pulling should be RIDICULOUS at level 15. but if you want to pull off a basic stunt that you did 10 levels ago, you still have a basic framework. I think status effects are an important part of stunts as well. Oh look, you released all these barrels and all the enemies took 1d6+level damage and are now prone. Have fun with that advantage on attack, and difficult terrain.
If I was going to seriously codify it, I would write up some examples and look towards spells like Tsunami, or fireball, or other things that could be translated into a stunt.
I also think another big thing to successful stunts is really hammering home that this is collaborative storytelling between the players and DM. So when a player announces a stunt and a concept of the result they want, they work with the DM to come to an agreement together. Because with my stunts, my players need to give me an idea of the outcome they want, not just "I do this thing!". Its "I want to cut these barrels free and have them roll over the enemies, knocking them prone and hurting them". There we go, most of my work is done already.
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
One of the more positive effects 4E Essentials had on the rough framework of "skill vs random BS" that was initially in that game was a group of suggested actions that each skill could be used for. All they were missing was how hard the action might be, if I remember right. I've exactly zero familiarity with 5E so I'm not sure how that's going in terms of "hold my beer" moments.
Aside: since Wizards has recently been talking about needing to revamp races in regards to math attached to them, as well as certain language that is problematic within the core of the racial descriptions, this could be a look at which previous writers they've had write actual fluff before to change the future iterations of the game to something more understanding to social issues. Which honestly probably feeds into the guess that this is taking a temperature of the generations of gamers but especially Gen Z, in that "if we got these people back to rework stuff, would you think we were missteping or would it be fine?" kind of way.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
That mechanic is already built into 5e though. Advantage/Disadvantage is right there along side Inspiration though... ready to apply a modifier to situational awesomeness.
PLAYER: My Barbarian wants to [insert rad shit here]...
DM: That's rad. Roll that shit with Advantage!
PLAYER2: My Bard wants to [insert incredibly risky move here]...
DM: That's rad. However the risks are incredible. Roll that shit with Disadvantage!
Now, I realize that most people think of Disadvantage as a negative thing, and in many cases it can be. I however like to look at it similar to the Advantage/Thread axis from Star Wars/Genysis. Its not bad, but rather an avenue for more collaborative storytelling.
On the subject of improvising stunts, I've thought since the 4E days that there should be a specific Power (or Action I guess in 5E) that is "Do Something Unexpected" with actual rules for how to do something unexpected. It doesn't need to be complex, but some scaffolding for everyone to use would be really swell, like what you should probably roll, what the difficulty should probably be, and what kind of damage or status effects an improvised action ought to be able to do. There's plenty of room for thinking outside the box while keeping the Game in Role Playing Game.
All of this kind of stuff has been kinda-sorta in the books for many editions already, but it's always so vague and is just like "You should let your players do crazy stuff, just become an instant game designer in that moment and balance the current situation with regular actions and of course extrapolate the lasting impacts of your ruling on the future of your game, in your head, right now."
So DA is going to pimp a D&D alike for a cool sort of narrative thing but with some actual rules for it...what game do you think it is?
Now, I realize that most people think of Disadvantage as a negative thing, and in many cases it can be. I however like to look at it similar to the Advantage/Thread axis from Star Wars/Genysis. Its not bad, but rather an avenue for more collaborative storytelling.
If only the game agreed with you about that in any way. If you want players to routinely do risky cool things then you have to make risky cool things not a horrible idea to do. This can be long term incentives (Dungeon World/Blades in the Dark give XP for making "bad" rolls) or giving over some explicit narrative agency to the players to control the risks.
On the subject of improvising stunts, I've thought since the 4E days that there should be a specific Power (or Action I guess in 5E) that is "Do Something Unexpected" with actual rules for how to do something unexpected. It doesn't need to be complex, but some scaffolding for everyone to use would be really swell, like what you should probably roll, what the difficulty should probably be, and what kind of damage or status effects an improvised action ought to be able to do. There's plenty of room for thinking outside the box while keeping the Game in Role Playing Game.
All of this kind of stuff has been kinda-sorta in the books for many editions already, but it's always so vague and is just like "You should let your players do crazy stuff, just become an instant game designer in that moment and balance the current situation with regular actions and of course extrapolate the lasting impacts of your ruling on the future of your game, in your head, right now."
So DA is going to pimp a D&D alike for a cool sort of narrative thing but with some actual rules for it...what game do you think it is?
Now, I realize that most people think of Disadvantage as a negative thing, and in many cases it can be. I however like to look at it similar to the Advantage/Thread axis from Star Wars/Genysis. Its not bad, but rather an avenue for more collaborative storytelling.
If only the game agreed with you about that in any way. If you want players to routinely do risky cool things then you have to make risky cool things not a horrible idea to do. This can be long term incentives (Dungeon World/Blades in the Dark give XP for making "bad" rolls) or giving over some explicit narrative agency to the players to control the risks.
On your second part, I'm a fan of just letting them do it, and if it puts them in a super dicey position after the fact? Well they'll have to deal with those consequences. I'm actually running a 13th age game, so I'm going to check out those rules before porting over the Story points from Genesys.
Big stunts in my mind go beyond the standard action economy that OGL games use. They are beyond just advantage/disadvantage on a roll (though they can be used for that in a dire need!) and that's why they need their own token. Its a big action, with big consequences, and a "Daily" resource to pull off.
Edit: Ok read that PDF and those are certainly things that could be used. I prefer the giving them the point and letting them do it approach versus skill check. I DO like the concept of risk though. "Ok you're doing thing thing, what are the potential negative consequences of this action once it's complete" and apply those when applicable.
That mechanic is already built into 5e though. Advantage/Disadvantage is right there along side Inspiration though... ready to apply a modifier to situational awesomeness.
PLAYER: My Barbarian wants to [insert rad shit here]...
DM: That's rad. Roll that shit with Advantage!
PLAYER2: My Bard wants to [insert incredibly risky move here]...
DM: That's rad. However the risks are incredible. Roll that shit with Disadvantage!
Now, I realize that most people think of Disadvantage as a negative thing, and in many cases it can be. I however like to look at it similar to the Advantage/Thread axis from Star Wars/Genysis. Its not bad, but rather an avenue for more collaborative storytelling.
Dis/Advantage is fine and all, but what I'm actually talking about is:
Player: I want to (do something unusual)
DM: That's rad, roll it with advantage!
Player: Roll what?
DM: Uh... An attack roll I guess?
Player: I'm not using my weapon, do I have proficiency or...?
DM: I... uh, well no I guess not...
Player: Okay. I got an 18, do I do it?
DM: Yeeeeah sure that's good I guess.
Player: *stares expectantly*
DM: Oh right. Roll damage, and they're knocked prone.
Player: What do I roll for damage? Same as my axe?
DM: Mmm it's not exactly the same thing, 1d8?
Player: Do I add anything?
DM: *Jesus take the wheeeeeel*
I appreciate the comedy there... but adjudicating things at the table not explicitly spelled out in the rules is not that bad.
In my mind the reward is not necessarily always going to be a higher number on the skill check, but what can come of the results. There is absolutely no reason D&D cannot be run as somewhat of collaborative narrative game alongside the pass/fail mechanic of its legacy. Look at the C-Team for an example of it done right there at the table (Jerry is a HUGE fan of his players) or even to Critical Role as an example of it done behind the scenes or working with the DM between sessions to push the narrative between DM and Player.
I appreciate the comedy there... but adjudicating things at the table not explicitly spelled out in the rules is not that bad.
Yes I was being silly but those are real questions the DM has to answer. Roll what? With what bonuses? Against what DC? What happens if they succeed? What happens if they fail? Is that better or worse than just using an existing thing? Should it be? Is kicking a flaming barrel as powerful as a diving attack off a swinging chandelier? Is either as powerful as a paladin's smite? Should they be? Oh and don't forget to keep momentum at the table going, you can't grind combat to a halt to look up rules, certainly you can't stop to write them, right?
The game designers (in theory) have these guidelines for themselves when they're making the game. Why can't they share the same guidelines with us instead of filling the books with "I don't know, whatever, ask your DM"?
And yeah I'm actual play you can come up with something off the cuff pretty quick. I've done it plenty of times. I just find it exhausting doing it without a net and I'd rather not pay $60 to write the game myself.
The game I ran yesterday they ran into a malfunctioning modron posing as a shopkeeper with a hat of disguise and I used AI Dungeon to generate 100% of the shopkeeper's responses
they were super confused until they figured out what was going on
override367 on
+14
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited August 2020
Due to the Coronavirus, I had to shut my store down and stop running things like DnD in store. I've been working on two new campaigns for DnD now that we can reopen and get people playing games in store again, but I just don't know if I want to start running DnD again. Now that I've had a nice long break from it, I'm not sure how much I want to restart doing so - even though I'm begin regularly asked by customers about when it's restarting. Bear in mind I don't even like DnD and yet I've successfully run a minimum of three campaigns every Wednesday for over three years now. I'm feeling like I've done my time, but I'm unsure if I can run other games because DnD is just so effective at getting new people into roleplaying - which is the only reason I've done it for so long.
Also, I am extremely interested to know how flour makes a fighter match a wizard in any situation.
Due to the Coronavirus, I had to shut my store down and stop running things like DnD in store. I've been working on two new campaigns for DnD now that we can reopen and get people playing games in store again, but I just don't know if I want to start running DnD again. Now that I've had a nice long break from it, I'm not sure how much I want to restart doing so - even though I'm begin regularly asked by customers about when it's restarting.
Also, I am extremely interested to know how flour makes a fighter match a wizard in any situation.
If you're referring to my thing, Flour is actually highly explosive in the right situations (any fine flammable particle matter is, actually, but flour is the most likely candiate. sawdust would work too).
So match a wizard? No. Improvise a fireball or worse? Oh hell yes.
Basically do not let your pyrotechnic fighter near a grainy or mill, things will end badly.
Yeah I don't think 5e is going away anytime soon, it's only been around ~6 years. Fourth edition lasted 6 years.
Yeah and 4e was the best-selling D&D ever, just like 5e!
4E had some stiff competition from Pathfinder at the time, though. As far as I can tell 5E has left Pathfinder 2E in the dust.
Pathfinder 2e only came out a few months ago?
It's been out over a year.
Ah, shows how much I actually care about Pathfinder, I guess.
But at the same time, saying "well D&D is outperforming Pathfinder" has always been a true statement?
I own a games store and the degree that 5E DnD outsells every single other RPG - and believe me, I get the weird RPGs in as well as the standard stuff - is orders of magnitudes higher than everything else. Pathfinder 2E isn't even allowed into the carpark of the building that the sales where 5E are.
Like, I really don't know how to emphasize how well 5E sells and I'm in a small rural town in Australia.
4E had some stiff competition from Pathfinder at the time, though. As far as I can tell 5E has left Pathfinder 2E in the dust.
No. The issue was that 4e was expensive to make. Whereas5e has like... 2 developers on permanent staff
It helps when you have a cunning strategy of just basically never releasing any substantial materials for players in terms of new classes etc. This has allowed them to keep an extremely tight reign on overall design and power creep. It honestly works much better than I ever anticipated it to do.
Also, I am extremely interested to know how flour makes a fighter match a wizard in any situation.
The tl;dr of it is basically a joke/meme whereby judicious application of flour can mimic any spell effect. Explode bag of flour into the air -> See Invisible. Light flour on fire -> Fireball
The ... loooong of it starts around here and starts to really get into it here and by p80 the word "flour" had been banned from the thread.
I appreciate the comedy there... but adjudicating things at the table not explicitly spelled out in the rules is not that bad.
Yes I was being silly but those are real questions the DM has to answer. Roll what? With what bonuses? Against what DC? What happens if they succeed? What happens if they fail? Is that better or worse than just using an existing thing? Should it be? Is kicking a flaming barrel as powerful as a diving attack off a swinging chandelier? Is either as powerful as a paladin's smite? Should they be? Oh and don't forget to keep momentum at the table going, you can't grind combat to a halt to look up rules, certainly you can't stop to write them, right?
The game designers (in theory) have these guidelines for themselves when they're making the game. Why can't they share the same guidelines with us instead of filling the books with "I don't know, whatever, ask your DM"?
And yeah I'm actual play you can come up with something off the cuff pretty quick. I've done it plenty of times. I just find it exhausting doing it without a net and I'd rather not pay $60 to write the game myself.
You are not wrong. It just that I don't think having to shoulder that burden is quite the existential threat that many others do.
Does every other game tell what the damage potential of a flaming barrel does vis a vis a Fireball or a rocket launcher? Does Shadowrun? Does Genesys? Does Pathfinder? Does Apocalypse? I genuinely do not know, as I am not very familiar with the nitty gritty of some of those games. And, for me, its a hurdle I can easily get over.
It's far more important to me that the players and DM all think "wow, that was rad" and enjoy the moment when someone dives off a chandelier rather than argue over an extra d6 in damage here or there, or if that was objectively better than a 3rd level smite or not.
I appreciate the comedy there... but adjudicating things at the table not explicitly spelled out in the rules is not that bad.
Yes I was being silly but those are real questions the DM has to answer. Roll what? With what bonuses? Against what DC? What happens if they succeed? What happens if they fail? Is that better or worse than just using an existing thing? Should it be? Is kicking a flaming barrel as powerful as a diving attack off a swinging chandelier? Is either as powerful as a paladin's smite? Should they be? Oh and don't forget to keep momentum at the table going, you can't grind combat to a halt to look up rules, certainly you can't stop to write them, right?
The game designers (in theory) have these guidelines for themselves when they're making the game. Why can't they share the same guidelines with us instead of filling the books with "I don't know, whatever, ask your DM"?
And yeah I'm actual play you can come up with something off the cuff pretty quick. I've done it plenty of times. I just find it exhausting doing it without a net and I'd rather not pay $60 to write the game myself.
You are not wrong. It just that I don't think having to shoulder that burden is quite the existential threat that many others do.
Does every other game tell what the damage potential of a flaming barrel does vis a vis a Fireball or a rocket launcher? Does Shadowrun? Does Genesys? Does Pathfinder? Does Apocalypse? I genuinely do not know, as I am not very familiar with the nitty gritty of some of those games. And, for me, its a hurdle I can easily get over.
It's far more important to me that the players and DM all think "wow, that was rad" and enjoy the moment when someone dives off a chandelier rather than argue over an extra d6 in damage here or there, or if that was objectively better than a 3rd level smite or not.
Sure, a DM (myself included) can come up with this stuff on their own, on the fly, whenever it comes up at the table. We can (and have) done it without much or any input from the designers of the game that ostensibly know the answers to these questions. And again, my point is that it would be nice if those designers just shared their guidelines with us and gave us a little structure to use.
It's not an existential threat. It's not something that every other game does. It doesn't prevent something cool from happening in a session. It isn't some zero-sum game where you can either have a good idea of how to adjudicate something or people can have fun. All of those useless statements being made, I don't think it's too much to ask that, rather than just writing "We don't know, you figure it out! It's your game!" the designers of D&D just went the extra couple of steps to say "Actually yes we do know, we did make D&D after all, and these are the rules we used. Now you can use them to make it your game as well."
Now I need to make a table of mundane disaster damage for my game. For D&D, I'd say you could estimate how much force 1 point of damage is by working backwards from the object durability table.
I allow "stunts" in all the games I run, it doesn't come up too often, besides one player who tries to attempt them pretty often. The thing is that most things that would qualify as a stunt are usually an action, which there are already rules for. Rules for it for D&D would look something like the below.
After thinking about this, it's actually a bit bigger in scope than I was thinking, I'll just dump the WIP stuff anyway. It's a martial-focused extension of grappling rules and such, but letting them inflict a bunch of other short-duration conditions with a called shot, or using an environmental object to attack with. In actual practice, it's been movement stuff, like "can I cross this corner, can I jump off this guy when I technically don't have enough movement, can I use my reaction to prevent someone jumping over me."
Stunts
Players can attempt to do something that is beyond their normal abilities, bending the rules of the game. The player first describes what they are trying to do, which must be something that plausibly follows from one of their abilities. Once the player and DM agree on what is being attempted, the DM will then set the type of check for the stunt and its difficulty, and the mechanical effects of failure and success. Consequences will vary widely depending on the particular situation. The player can choose not to perform the stunt after the DM sets the check type, difficulty, and consequences.
Stunts must modify a character's movement, action, bonus action, reaction, or spell the can cast.
Stunts usually should not increase damage, but instead are intended to let characters engage with the environment and story of the game, taking actions the rules do not directly allow. Stunts cannot break "hard" rules in the game, such as many magic spells establish; for example, a stunt cannot make an enchantment spell force an enemy to harm itself, let a creature concentrate on two spells at once, or take extra actions in the same turn. Lastly, remember not to punish your players too harshly for failed stunts!
Choosing Difficulties
Use the standard difficulty table in the DMG. Most stunts will be Moderate (DC 15), Hard (DC 20), or Very Hard (DC 25).
Example Stunts
-Slip: Move through an enemy or ally's space. Dexterity/Acrobatics. DC 20 base; can change based on the fiction, for example, sliding underneath a floating beholder is easier than dashing through a grey ooze unharmed. Failure: Stumble.
Failed Stunt Consequences
-Miss: The stunt has no effect on its target.
-Partial success: If the stunt deals damage, prevents damage, or heals, that amount is halved. If the stunt causes a creature to make a save, they have advantage on the save. If the stunt moves a creature, the distance of the movement is halved.
-Stumble: The stunt succeeds, but the player suffers a condition until the end of their next turn, such as prone, incapacitated, restrained, blinded, or deafened.
-Backlash: If the stunt deals damage, prevents damage, or heals, it succeeds, but the player takes damage equal to 1/2/3/4 of their hit dice at levels 1/5/11/17. If the stunt inflicted another magical effect or condition, it succeeds, but the player suffers that effect or condition until the end of their next turn.
What if you always succeed when you do a stunt, and then you roll not to get messed up by it?
First, you do it.
Next, you have to roll higher than the DC.
Succeed and there are no consequences for your stunt.
Fail and trouble follows you.
Maybe the chandelier snaps and falls, and you don’t land where you intended.
Maybe you slip beyond the ooze, but now you’re stuck to it on the other side.
Maybe you kick the explosive barrel onto the orc, but the explosion knocks you off the roof.
Maybe you use a ladder to fight, and trap him in the rungs, but as he falls back you’re lifted into the air.
What I’m saying is, they do what they intend first, then we roll. I do it 1/3 of the time when I host a game and it gives the game (regardless of system) a kind of frenetic energy everyone seems to enjoy.
I appreciate the comedy there... but adjudicating things at the table not explicitly spelled out in the rules is not that bad.
Yes I was being silly but those are real questions the DM has to answer. Roll what? With what bonuses? Against what DC? What happens if they succeed? What happens if they fail? Is that better or worse than just using an existing thing? Should it be? Is kicking a flaming barrel as powerful as a diving attack off a swinging chandelier? Is either as powerful as a paladin's smite? Should they be? Oh and don't forget to keep momentum at the table going, you can't grind combat to a halt to look up rules, certainly you can't stop to write them, right?
The game designers (in theory) have these guidelines for themselves when they're making the game. Why can't they share the same guidelines with us instead of filling the books with "I don't know, whatever, ask your DM"?
And yeah I'm actual play you can come up with something off the cuff pretty quick. I've done it plenty of times. I just find it exhausting doing it without a net and I'd rather not pay $60 to write the game myself.
You are not wrong. It just that I don't think having to shoulder that burden is quite the existential threat that many others do.
Does every other game tell what the damage potential of a flaming barrel does vis a vis a Fireball or a rocket launcher? Does Shadowrun? Does Genesys? Does Pathfinder? Does Apocalypse? I genuinely do not know, as I am not very familiar with the nitty gritty of some of those games. And, for me, its a hurdle I can easily get over.
It's far more important to me that the players and DM all think "wow, that was rad" and enjoy the moment when someone dives off a chandelier rather than argue over an extra d6 in damage here or there, or if that was objectively better than a 3rd level smite or not.
Sure, a DM (myself included) can come up with this stuff on their own, on the fly, whenever it comes up at the table. We can (and have) done it without much or any input from the designers of the game that ostensibly know the answers to these questions. And again, my point is that it would be nice if those designers just shared their guidelines with us and gave us a little structure to use.
It's not an existential threat. It's not something that every other game does. It doesn't prevent something cool from happening in a session. It isn't some zero-sum game where you can either have a good idea of how to adjudicate something or people can have fun. All of those useless statements being made, I don't think it's too much to ask that, rather than just writing "We don't know, you figure it out! It's your game!" the designers of D&D just went the extra couple of steps to say "Actually yes we do know, we did make D&D after all, and these are the rules we used. Now you can use them to make it your game as well."
I think that half the fun of TTRPGs in general is doing stuff that nobody could plan for. And expecting any team of developers to manage to come up with a workable rule set for any and every possible contingency that every player in the world might possibly come up with seems like a big ask. At some point the designers either have to say "This is all that you can do, anything outside of this box is off limits because we only have 500 pages for rules here", or they have to say "We've given you the rules that we can, when you come across something not covered use your own creativity".
0
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
You are not wrong. It just that I don't think having to shoulder that burden is quite the existential threat that many others do.
Does every other game tell what the damage potential of a flaming barrel does vis a vis a Fireball or a rocket launcher? Does Shadowrun? Does Genesys? Does Pathfinder? Does Apocalypse? I genuinely do not know, as I am not very familiar with the nitty gritty of some of those games. And, for me, its a hurdle I can easily get over.
It's far more important to me that the players and DM all think "wow, that was rad" and enjoy the moment when someone dives off a chandelier rather than argue over an extra d6 in damage here or there, or if that was objectively better than a 3rd level smite or not.
Personally if the stunt is less mathematically rewarding in terms of damage and bonuses and tactical advantage than something else more defined that I could have done, I'd personally be much less likely to improvise in the future because for me what matters are results more than how it "appears". I know personally I'm more mechanics driven, and it seems a lot of folks here are at least somewhat more narrative in play and in running games, so who knows, I might be the odd man out. But when I have a certain amount of possibility within a single turn to do a certain amount of useful output, I want to maximize that to greatest effect.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
I would love to see a designer guide that is just full of design intent stuff behind abilities, expected use cases for abilities, etc
One thing that 5e is bad at is telling us what a lot of spells and abilities are for or how theyre actually used, and its' even worse at telling DMs how to use specific monsters effectively against the players to provide a thrilling combat encounter
The worry would be slowing games down looking up intent, but often that can be found in sage advice or other places anyway
I appreciate the comedy there... but adjudicating things at the table not explicitly spelled out in the rules is not that bad.
Yes I was being silly but those are real questions the DM has to answer. Roll what? With what bonuses? Against what DC? What happens if they succeed? What happens if they fail? Is that better or worse than just using an existing thing? Should it be? Is kicking a flaming barrel as powerful as a diving attack off a swinging chandelier? Is either as powerful as a paladin's smite? Should they be? Oh and don't forget to keep momentum at the table going, you can't grind combat to a halt to look up rules, certainly you can't stop to write them, right?
The game designers (in theory) have these guidelines for themselves when they're making the game. Why can't they share the same guidelines with us instead of filling the books with "I don't know, whatever, ask your DM"?
And yeah I'm actual play you can come up with something off the cuff pretty quick. I've done it plenty of times. I just find it exhausting doing it without a net and I'd rather not pay $60 to write the game myself.
You are not wrong. It just that I don't think having to shoulder that burden is quite the existential threat that many others do.
Does every other game tell what the damage potential of a flaming barrel does vis a vis a Fireball or a rocket launcher? Does Shadowrun? Does Genesys? Does Pathfinder? Does Apocalypse? I genuinely do not know, as I am not very familiar with the nitty gritty of some of those games. And, for me, its a hurdle I can easily get over.
It's far more important to me that the players and DM all think "wow, that was rad" and enjoy the moment when someone dives off a chandelier rather than argue over an extra d6 in damage here or there, or if that was objectively better than a 3rd level smite or not.
Sure, a DM (myself included) can come up with this stuff on their own, on the fly, whenever it comes up at the table. We can (and have) done it without much or any input from the designers of the game that ostensibly know the answers to these questions. And again, my point is that it would be nice if those designers just shared their guidelines with us and gave us a little structure to use.
It's not an existential threat. It's not something that every other game does. It doesn't prevent something cool from happening in a session. It isn't some zero-sum game where you can either have a good idea of how to adjudicate something or people can have fun. All of those useless statements being made, I don't think it's too much to ask that, rather than just writing "We don't know, you figure it out! It's your game!" the designers of D&D just went the extra couple of steps to say "Actually yes we do know, we did make D&D after all, and these are the rules we used. Now you can use them to make it your game as well."
Again, I'm mostly with you. But as @see317 said, there is only so much bandwidth available (either in the book or in my brain) to keep track of, what I would consider to be, that sort of minutiae. And I appreciate and respect that others may need more or less crunch than I do. But I don't need specific rules to determine how much damage a flaming barrel does. I can muddle through with close-enough comparisons to make it work at my table. If it happens repeatedly, then we'll make a more consistent ruling to use moving forwards. These things can always be adjusted through play-testing.
You are not wrong. It just that I don't think having to shoulder that burden is quite the existential threat that many others do.
Does every other game tell what the damage potential of a flaming barrel does vis a vis a Fireball or a rocket launcher? Does Shadowrun? Does Genesys? Does Pathfinder? Does Apocalypse? I genuinely do not know, as I am not very familiar with the nitty gritty of some of those games. And, for me, its a hurdle I can easily get over.
It's far more important to me that the players and DM all think "wow, that was rad" and enjoy the moment when someone dives off a chandelier rather than argue over an extra d6 in damage here or there, or if that was objectively better than a 3rd level smite or not.
Personally if the stunt is less mathematically rewarding in terms of damage and bonuses and tactical advantage than something else more defined that I could have done, I'd personally be much less likely to improvise in the future because for me what matters are results more than how it "appears". I know personally I'm more mechanics driven, and it seems a lot of folks here are at least somewhat more narrative in play and in running games, so who knows, I might be the odd man out. But when I have a certain amount of possibility within a single turn to do a certain amount of useful output, I want to maximize that to greatest effect.
I use the "Fireball Scale" myself. Since Fireball is such an iconic D&D thing, I use it for comparison to most of the non-regulated damage dealing things players could come up with. Is a flaming barrel worth half a fireball? 4d6 damage and 10' radius.... A quarter fireball? 2d6 damage and 5' radius.
D&D is the RPG juggernaut not because they spend more money on developing it, but because it has the largest advertising budget by absurd amounts and because it has cultural osmosis from being a brand that has been talked about by mainstream sources for decades.
I would love to see a designer guide that is just full of design intent stuff behind abilities, expected use cases for abilities, etc
One thing that 5e is bad at is telling us what a lot of spells and abilities are for or how theyre actually used, and its' even worse at telling DMs how to use specific monsters effectively against the players to provide a thrilling combat encounter
Yes, this please.
Along the same line of thought: I don't think Denada is asking for more rules, what they're getting at is for the rule book to say "This is the thought process we used to determine [what a 5th level spell does]" so that the players and DMs can then apply the same thought process to things that happen in their games and feel confident that their decisions are in line with everyone's expectations.
More rules won't empower DMs and players. But sharing the guiding principles behind the current rules might
I would love to see a designer guide that is just full of design intent stuff behind abilities, expected use cases for abilities, etc
One thing that 5e is bad at is telling us what a lot of spells and abilities are for or how theyre actually used, and its' even worse at telling DMs how to use specific monsters effectively against the players to provide a thrilling combat encounter
Yes, this please.
Along the same line of thought: I don't think Denada is asking for more rules, what they're getting at is for the rule book to say "This is the thought process we used to determine [what a 5th level spell does]" so that the players and DMs can then apply the same thought process to things that happen in their games and feel confident that their decisions are in line with everyone's expectations.
More rules won't empower DMs and players. But sharing the guiding principles behind the current rules might
Personally if the stunt is less mathematically rewarding in terms of damage and bonuses and tactical advantage than something else more defined that I could have done, I'd personally be much less likely to improvise in the future because for me what matters are results more than how it "appears". I know personally I'm more mechanics driven, and it seems a lot of folks here are at least somewhat more narrative in play and in running games, so who knows, I might be the odd man out. But when I have a certain amount of possibility within a single turn to do a certain amount of useful output, I want to maximize that to greatest effect.
Conversely, if a bog-standard attack is both the least interesting and the least powerful option, that completely shits all over classes designed around that principle and potentially pushes away players who aren't great at improvising.
e: I say this not as a refutation of your point, merely presenting the paradox of the matter
Personally if the stunt is less mathematically rewarding in terms of damage and bonuses and tactical advantage than something else more defined that I could have done, I'd personally be much less likely to improvise in the future because for me what matters are results more than how it "appears". I know personally I'm more mechanics driven, and it seems a lot of folks here are at least somewhat more narrative in play and in running games, so who knows, I might be the odd man out. But when I have a certain amount of possibility within a single turn to do a certain amount of useful output, I want to maximize that to greatest effect.
Conversely, if a bog-standard attack is both the least interesting and the least powerful option, that completely shits all over classes designed around that principle and potentially pushes away players who aren't great at improvising.
e: I say this not as a refutation of your point, merely presenting the paradox of the matter
This is why I'm limiting my stunts with story points. You can do big awesome things, just rarely.
I think that half the fun of TTRPGs in general is doing stuff that nobody could plan for. And expecting any team of developers to manage to come up with a workable rule set for any and every possible contingency that every player in the world might possibly come up with seems like a big ask. At some point the designers either have to say "This is all that you can do, anything outside of this box is off limits because we only have 500 pages for rules here", or they have to say "We've given you the rules that we can, when you come across something not covered use your own creativity".
Again, I'm mostly with you. But as see317 said, there is only so much bandwidth available (either in the book or in my brain) to keep track of, what I would consider to be, that sort of minutiae. And I appreciate and respect that others may need more or less crunch than I do. But I don't need specific rules to determine how much damage a flaming barrel does. I can muddle through with close-enough comparisons to make it work at my table. If it happens repeatedly, then we'll make a more consistent ruling to use moving forwards. These things can always be adjusted through play-testing.
I guess I'm just not communicating remotely as clearly as I think I am. I am not asking and never have asked for a 60 page Stunt List in the PHB. I am not asking for Wizards of the Coast to contract with Gale Force Nine to sell me a card that has the Superman Punch Off of a Charging Bull stunt printed on it.
I am saying that, in theory, the people that designed D&D have a set of guidelines regarding, for example, how much damage a character of a given level should be able to do with one action, how to adjust that average damage if the action has multiple targets or applies status effects, and how limited usage of an action should adjust those things up and down. One would think that they used these guidelines when designing the things that are already in the game, like why Lightning Bolt does 8d6 damage instead of 12d10 damage, or why the proficiency bonus at level 5 is +3 instead of +6.
Given that presumption, I am asking for a simple set of rules that enumerate these guidelines to the purchasers of the game. That way, when a player says "I want to ride the shield down the stairs then kick-flip it into the orc's chest!" the DM can quickly consult (or after enough time just remember) that framework and know that an attack and a proficient skill check usually have the same bonus, so Legolas can roll an Acrobatics check against the orc's AC. We'd also know that a single target level 1 spell should do 2d10 damage, and this is roughly equivalent to that, so Legolas can roll 2d10 (or some equivalent dice expression) damage if he hits.
To me, this is better than "Yeah that sounds cool, just feel it out and live in the moment! Do whatever man, it's your game!"
I don't think you should make rules out of those guidelines, though. You talk about guidelines to base judgements off of, but then ask for rules to follow? That's my disconnect here.
I'm all for the guidelines you talk about. But codifying them, IMO, will just put more limits on them. I'd much rather have more guidelines and examples and comparisons for DM's to base rulings on rather than rules for them to follow.
I would love to see a designer guide that is just full of design intent stuff behind abilities, expected use cases for abilities, etc
One thing that 5e is bad at is telling us what a lot of spells and abilities are for or how theyre actually used, and its' even worse at telling DMs how to use specific monsters effectively against the players to provide a thrilling combat encounter
Yes, this please.
Along the same line of thought: I don't think Denada is asking for more rules, what they're getting at is for the rule book to say "This is the thought process we used to determine [what a 5th level spell does]" so that the players and DMs can then apply the same thought process to things that happen in their games and feel confident that their decisions are in line with everyone's expectations.
More rules won't empower DMs and players. But sharing the guiding principles behind the current rules might
Right something like
"The thinking behind witch bolt is that, although it only does 1d12 on subsequent rounds no matter what level it is cast at, is that an intelligent creature won't want to put up with being literally sprayed with lightning. That it should act like an area denial spell, where a creature will seek to escape the onslaught of lightning because it's incredibly painful"
I have no idea if that actually is the intent with witch bolt, that's just an example of the kind of thing where a little bit less obfuscation of designer intent could make an ability better
I don't think you should make rules out of those guidelines, though. You talk about guidelines to base judgements off of, but then ask for rules to follow? That's my disconnect here.
I'm all for the guidelines you talk about. But codifying them, IMO, will just put more limits on them. I'd much rather have more guidelines and examples and comparisons for DM's to base rulings on rather than rules for them to follow.
Yes this is definitely a disconnect. Guidelines and frameworks are rules. Certainly when people were working on Xanathar's Guide, their design briefs weren't just "Yeah just feel it all out, it's your chapter, just write what feels right to you." When a UA article comes out, certainly the bar for eventual inclusion in a published, purchasable product isn't "It doesn't matter if it's balanced, was it fun in the moment?"
There are rules for how things in the game are designed. Those rules must take the form of guidelines for the designers of the game. Is it not possible that those guidelines - those rules - could be shared in a form consumable by the people that bought the game?
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
To be fair, there are some times when I look at parts of 5e and feel certain the only guiding principle at work here is, "That's how we did it before, in [whatever] edition" with some, "But does it feel Iconic?" added for taste
Fake edit Fuck I just made the connection to the Icons in 13th Age
"You say you want iconic, we'll fucking give you iconic!"
To be fair, there are some times when I look at parts of 5e and feel certain the only guiding principle at work here is, "That's how we did it before, in [whatever] edition" with some, "But does it feel Iconic?" added for taste
Yeah this is why I used a lot of "in theory" type language, because there are 11 pages of monster-making rules in the DMG and none of the monsters in the MM follow them. So, not the best edition to be referencing for this whole thing really.
What if you always succeed when you do a stunt, and then you roll not to get messed up by it?
First, you do it.
Next, you have to roll higher than the DC.
Succeed and there are no consequences for your stunt.
Fail and trouble follows you.
Maybe the chandelier snaps and falls, and you don’t land where you intended.
Maybe you slip beyond the ooze, but now you’re stuck to it on the other side.
Maybe you kick the explosive barrel onto the orc, but the explosion knocks you off the roof.
Maybe you use a ladder to fight, and trap him in the rungs, but as he falls back you’re lifted into the air.
What I’m saying is, they do what they intend first, then we roll. I do it 1/3 of the time when I host a game and it gives the game (regardless of system) a kind of frenetic energy everyone seems to enjoy.
My mental image of this is: "Make a saving throw against your bright idea."
I kind of love it. Both in a risk vs reward kind of way, but also in a narrative action leads to narrative consequences way. I think having just baseline stunt rules for bonus damage or condition application and duration would be the maximum amount of effort needed to sell it to a more mechanics oriented player, too. I wonder if they think that just having baseline DCs for challenges is enough effort on that part. I think an Unearthed Arcana would be all you would need to expand it in that direction, rather than a whole book or skills overhaul.
I see you, Denada. Just admit you want the monster quick statblock chart from the 4e dmg :P
e: but realtalk what you're asking for is basically the sidebars from 13th Age, where the designers basically discuss experiences they had running the game in development and how they handled that stuff
Posts
I...
What.
You know what? I'm better off not knowing about the flour fight. I think it's just safer for my sanity. (Though i am reminded of a differnet forum having the mod call of "Do not cast spells on other members" after one poster flamed out in spectacular fashion)
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
The basis was that non-magical characters could use "creative thinking" to make up the gap in all those situations in D&D where they can literally do nothing but let the spellcasters fix things. It was dumb but hey, it got a wide spread abuser off the forums so it had some positive upsides!
All of this kind of stuff has been kinda-sorta in the books for many editions already, but it's always so vague and is just like "You should let your players do crazy stuff, just become an instant game designer in that moment and balance the current situation with regular actions and of course extrapolate the lasting impacts of your ruling on the future of your game, in your head, right now."
Agreed.
I think @Whelk suggestion of having Normal/heroic/supernatural tiers of stunts with example DCs and results would be a great thing. In 5e you could also bolt it into the skill system to good effect - for instance, Fighters could get a global "You count as having expertise when stunting" to represent the fantasy of fighters ontop of the game at using their heads and bodies in concert. Barbarians could get similar for raw strength, you get the idea. Rouges already get a bunch of expertise, so they'll be naturally good at doing things like "I sleight of hand the bomb into the badguys pocket!"
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
That's what I'm trying to do with story points. I think you could do a rule where damage potentially scales with players, so you could do levels 1-4 1d6+level, 5-9 2d6+level, 10-14 3d6+level and 15-20 4d6+level damage, because the stunts your pulling should be RIDICULOUS at level 15. but if you want to pull off a basic stunt that you did 10 levels ago, you still have a basic framework. I think status effects are an important part of stunts as well. Oh look, you released all these barrels and all the enemies took 1d6+level damage and are now prone. Have fun with that advantage on attack, and difficult terrain.
If I was going to seriously codify it, I would write up some examples and look towards spells like Tsunami, or fireball, or other things that could be translated into a stunt.
I also think another big thing to successful stunts is really hammering home that this is collaborative storytelling between the players and DM. So when a player announces a stunt and a concept of the result they want, they work with the DM to come to an agreement together. Because with my stunts, my players need to give me an idea of the outcome they want, not just "I do this thing!". Its "I want to cut these barrels free and have them roll over the enemies, knocking them prone and hurting them". There we go, most of my work is done already.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Aside: since Wizards has recently been talking about needing to revamp races in regards to math attached to them, as well as certain language that is problematic within the core of the racial descriptions, this could be a look at which previous writers they've had write actual fluff before to change the future iterations of the game to something more understanding to social issues. Which honestly probably feeds into the guess that this is taking a temperature of the generations of gamers but especially Gen Z, in that "if we got these people back to rework stuff, would you think we were missteping or would it be fine?" kind of way.
PLAYER: My Barbarian wants to [insert rad shit here]...
DM: That's rad. Roll that shit with Advantage!
PLAYER2: My Bard wants to [insert incredibly risky move here]...
DM: That's rad. However the risks are incredible. Roll that shit with Disadvantage!
Now, I realize that most people think of Disadvantage as a negative thing, and in many cases it can be. I however like to look at it similar to the Advantage/Thread axis from Star Wars/Genysis. Its not bad, but rather an avenue for more collaborative storytelling.
So DA is going to pimp a D&D alike for a cool sort of narrative thing but with some actual rules for it...what game do you think it is?
If only the game agreed with you about that in any way. If you want players to routinely do risky cool things then you have to make risky cool things not a horrible idea to do. This can be long term incentives (Dungeon World/Blades in the Dark give XP for making "bad" rolls) or giving over some explicit narrative agency to the players to control the risks.
On your second part, I'm a fan of just letting them do it, and if it puts them in a super dicey position after the fact? Well they'll have to deal with those consequences. I'm actually running a 13th age game, so I'm going to check out those rules before porting over the Story points from Genesys.
Big stunts in my mind go beyond the standard action economy that OGL games use. They are beyond just advantage/disadvantage on a roll (though they can be used for that in a dire need!) and that's why they need their own token. Its a big action, with big consequences, and a "Daily" resource to pull off.
Edit: Ok read that PDF and those are certainly things that could be used. I prefer the giving them the point and letting them do it approach versus skill check. I DO like the concept of risk though. "Ok you're doing thing thing, what are the potential negative consequences of this action once it's complete" and apply those when applicable.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Dis/Advantage is fine and all, but what I'm actually talking about is:
Player: I want to (do something unusual)
DM: That's rad, roll it with advantage!
Player: Roll what?
DM: Uh... An attack roll I guess?
Player: I'm not using my weapon, do I have proficiency or...?
DM: I... uh, well no I guess not...
Player: Okay. I got an 18, do I do it?
DM: Yeeeeah sure that's good I guess.
Player: *stares expectantly*
DM: Oh right. Roll damage, and they're knocked prone.
Player: What do I roll for damage? Same as my axe?
DM: Mmm it's not exactly the same thing, 1d8?
Player: Do I add anything?
DM: *Jesus take the wheeeeeel*
In my mind the reward is not necessarily always going to be a higher number on the skill check, but what can come of the results. There is absolutely no reason D&D cannot be run as somewhat of collaborative narrative game alongside the pass/fail mechanic of its legacy. Look at the C-Team for an example of it done right there at the table (Jerry is a HUGE fan of his players) or even to Critical Role as an example of it done behind the scenes or working with the DM between sessions to push the narrative between DM and Player.
Yes I was being silly but those are real questions the DM has to answer. Roll what? With what bonuses? Against what DC? What happens if they succeed? What happens if they fail? Is that better or worse than just using an existing thing? Should it be? Is kicking a flaming barrel as powerful as a diving attack off a swinging chandelier? Is either as powerful as a paladin's smite? Should they be? Oh and don't forget to keep momentum at the table going, you can't grind combat to a halt to look up rules, certainly you can't stop to write them, right?
The game designers (in theory) have these guidelines for themselves when they're making the game. Why can't they share the same guidelines with us instead of filling the books with "I don't know, whatever, ask your DM"?
And yeah I'm actual play you can come up with something off the cuff pretty quick. I've done it plenty of times. I just find it exhausting doing it without a net and I'd rather not pay $60 to write the game myself.
they were super confused until they figured out what was going on
Also, I am extremely interested to know how flour makes a fighter match a wizard in any situation.
If you're referring to my thing, Flour is actually highly explosive in the right situations (any fine flammable particle matter is, actually, but flour is the most likely candiate. sawdust would work too).
So match a wizard? No. Improvise a fireball or worse? Oh hell yes.
Basically do not let your pyrotechnic fighter near a grainy or mill, things will end badly.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
I own a games store and the degree that 5E DnD outsells every single other RPG - and believe me, I get the weird RPGs in as well as the standard stuff - is orders of magnitudes higher than everything else. Pathfinder 2E isn't even allowed into the carpark of the building that the sales where 5E are.
Like, I really don't know how to emphasize how well 5E sells and I'm in a small rural town in Australia.
It helps when you have a cunning strategy of just basically never releasing any substantial materials for players in terms of new classes etc. This has allowed them to keep an extremely tight reign on overall design and power creep. It honestly works much better than I ever anticipated it to do.
The tl;dr of it is basically a joke/meme whereby judicious application of flour can mimic any spell effect. Explode bag of flour into the air -> See Invisible. Light flour on fire -> Fireball
The ... loooong of it starts around here and starts to really get into it here and by p80 the word "flour" had been banned from the thread.
You are not wrong. It just that I don't think having to shoulder that burden is quite the existential threat that many others do.
Does every other game tell what the damage potential of a flaming barrel does vis a vis a Fireball or a rocket launcher? Does Shadowrun? Does Genesys? Does Pathfinder? Does Apocalypse? I genuinely do not know, as I am not very familiar with the nitty gritty of some of those games. And, for me, its a hurdle I can easily get over.
It's far more important to me that the players and DM all think "wow, that was rad" and enjoy the moment when someone dives off a chandelier rather than argue over an extra d6 in damage here or there, or if that was objectively better than a 3rd level smite or not.
Sure, a DM (myself included) can come up with this stuff on their own, on the fly, whenever it comes up at the table. We can (and have) done it without much or any input from the designers of the game that ostensibly know the answers to these questions. And again, my point is that it would be nice if those designers just shared their guidelines with us and gave us a little structure to use.
It's not an existential threat. It's not something that every other game does. It doesn't prevent something cool from happening in a session. It isn't some zero-sum game where you can either have a good idea of how to adjudicate something or people can have fun. All of those useless statements being made, I don't think it's too much to ask that, rather than just writing "We don't know, you figure it out! It's your game!" the designers of D&D just went the extra couple of steps to say "Actually yes we do know, we did make D&D after all, and these are the rules we used. Now you can use them to make it your game as well."
I allow "stunts" in all the games I run, it doesn't come up too often, besides one player who tries to attempt them pretty often. The thing is that most things that would qualify as a stunt are usually an action, which there are already rules for. Rules for it for D&D would look something like the below.
After thinking about this, it's actually a bit bigger in scope than I was thinking, I'll just dump the WIP stuff anyway. It's a martial-focused extension of grappling rules and such, but letting them inflict a bunch of other short-duration conditions with a called shot, or using an environmental object to attack with. In actual practice, it's been movement stuff, like "can I cross this corner, can I jump off this guy when I technically don't have enough movement, can I use my reaction to prevent someone jumping over me."
Stunts
Players can attempt to do something that is beyond their normal abilities, bending the rules of the game. The player first describes what they are trying to do, which must be something that plausibly follows from one of their abilities. Once the player and DM agree on what is being attempted, the DM will then set the type of check for the stunt and its difficulty, and the mechanical effects of failure and success. Consequences will vary widely depending on the particular situation. The player can choose not to perform the stunt after the DM sets the check type, difficulty, and consequences.
Stunts must modify a character's movement, action, bonus action, reaction, or spell the can cast.
Stunts usually should not increase damage, but instead are intended to let characters engage with the environment and story of the game, taking actions the rules do not directly allow. Stunts cannot break "hard" rules in the game, such as many magic spells establish; for example, a stunt cannot make an enchantment spell force an enemy to harm itself, let a creature concentrate on two spells at once, or take extra actions in the same turn. Lastly, remember not to punish your players too harshly for failed stunts!
Choosing Difficulties
Use the standard difficulty table in the DMG. Most stunts will be Moderate (DC 15), Hard (DC 20), or Very Hard (DC 25).
Example Stunts
-Slip: Move through an enemy or ally's space. Dexterity/Acrobatics. DC 20 base; can change based on the fiction, for example, sliding underneath a floating beholder is easier than dashing through a grey ooze unharmed. Failure: Stumble.
Failed Stunt Consequences
-Miss: The stunt has no effect on its target.
-Partial success: If the stunt deals damage, prevents damage, or heals, that amount is halved. If the stunt causes a creature to make a save, they have advantage on the save. If the stunt moves a creature, the distance of the movement is halved.
-Stumble: The stunt succeeds, but the player suffers a condition until the end of their next turn, such as prone, incapacitated, restrained, blinded, or deafened.
-Backlash: If the stunt deals damage, prevents damage, or heals, it succeeds, but the player takes damage equal to 1/2/3/4 of their hit dice at levels 1/5/11/17. If the stunt inflicted another magical effect or condition, it succeeds, but the player suffers that effect or condition until the end of their next turn.
First, you do it.
Next, you have to roll higher than the DC.
Succeed and there are no consequences for your stunt.
Fail and trouble follows you.
Maybe the chandelier snaps and falls, and you don’t land where you intended.
Maybe you slip beyond the ooze, but now you’re stuck to it on the other side.
Maybe you kick the explosive barrel onto the orc, but the explosion knocks you off the roof.
Maybe you use a ladder to fight, and trap him in the rungs, but as he falls back you’re lifted into the air.
What I’m saying is, they do what they intend first, then we roll. I do it 1/3 of the time when I host a game and it gives the game (regardless of system) a kind of frenetic energy everyone seems to enjoy.
I think that half the fun of TTRPGs in general is doing stuff that nobody could plan for. And expecting any team of developers to manage to come up with a workable rule set for any and every possible contingency that every player in the world might possibly come up with seems like a big ask. At some point the designers either have to say "This is all that you can do, anything outside of this box is off limits because we only have 500 pages for rules here", or they have to say "We've given you the rules that we can, when you come across something not covered use your own creativity".
Personally if the stunt is less mathematically rewarding in terms of damage and bonuses and tactical advantage than something else more defined that I could have done, I'd personally be much less likely to improvise in the future because for me what matters are results more than how it "appears". I know personally I'm more mechanics driven, and it seems a lot of folks here are at least somewhat more narrative in play and in running games, so who knows, I might be the odd man out. But when I have a certain amount of possibility within a single turn to do a certain amount of useful output, I want to maximize that to greatest effect.
One thing that 5e is bad at is telling us what a lot of spells and abilities are for or how theyre actually used, and its' even worse at telling DMs how to use specific monsters effectively against the players to provide a thrilling combat encounter
The worry would be slowing games down looking up intent, but often that can be found in sage advice or other places anyway
Again, I'm mostly with you. But as @see317 said, there is only so much bandwidth available (either in the book or in my brain) to keep track of, what I would consider to be, that sort of minutiae. And I appreciate and respect that others may need more or less crunch than I do. But I don't need specific rules to determine how much damage a flaming barrel does. I can muddle through with close-enough comparisons to make it work at my table. If it happens repeatedly, then we'll make a more consistent ruling to use moving forwards. These things can always be adjusted through play-testing.
I use the "Fireball Scale" myself. Since Fireball is such an iconic D&D thing, I use it for comparison to most of the non-regulated damage dealing things players could come up with. Is a flaming barrel worth half a fireball? 4d6 damage and 10' radius.... A quarter fireball? 2d6 damage and 5' radius.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yes, this please.
Along the same line of thought: I don't think Denada is asking for more rules, what they're getting at is for the rule book to say "This is the thought process we used to determine [what a 5th level spell does]" so that the players and DMs can then apply the same thought process to things that happen in their games and feel confident that their decisions are in line with everyone's expectations.
More rules won't empower DMs and players. But sharing the guiding principles behind the current rules might
Yea. Along these lines i want more frameworks.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Conversely, if a bog-standard attack is both the least interesting and the least powerful option, that completely shits all over classes designed around that principle and potentially pushes away players who aren't great at improvising.
e: I say this not as a refutation of your point, merely presenting the paradox of the matter
This is why I'm limiting my stunts with story points. You can do big awesome things, just rarely.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I guess I'm just not communicating remotely as clearly as I think I am. I am not asking and never have asked for a 60 page Stunt List in the PHB. I am not asking for Wizards of the Coast to contract with Gale Force Nine to sell me a card that has the Superman Punch Off of a Charging Bull stunt printed on it.
I am saying that, in theory, the people that designed D&D have a set of guidelines regarding, for example, how much damage a character of a given level should be able to do with one action, how to adjust that average damage if the action has multiple targets or applies status effects, and how limited usage of an action should adjust those things up and down. One would think that they used these guidelines when designing the things that are already in the game, like why Lightning Bolt does 8d6 damage instead of 12d10 damage, or why the proficiency bonus at level 5 is +3 instead of +6.
Given that presumption, I am asking for a simple set of rules that enumerate these guidelines to the purchasers of the game. That way, when a player says "I want to ride the shield down the stairs then kick-flip it into the orc's chest!" the DM can quickly consult (or after enough time just remember) that framework and know that an attack and a proficient skill check usually have the same bonus, so Legolas can roll an Acrobatics check against the orc's AC. We'd also know that a single target level 1 spell should do 2d10 damage, and this is roughly equivalent to that, so Legolas can roll 2d10 (or some equivalent dice expression) damage if he hits.
To me, this is better than "Yeah that sounds cool, just feel it out and live in the moment! Do whatever man, it's your game!"
I'm all for the guidelines you talk about. But codifying them, IMO, will just put more limits on them. I'd much rather have more guidelines and examples and comparisons for DM's to base rulings on rather than rules for them to follow.
Right something like
"The thinking behind witch bolt is that, although it only does 1d12 on subsequent rounds no matter what level it is cast at, is that an intelligent creature won't want to put up with being literally sprayed with lightning. That it should act like an area denial spell, where a creature will seek to escape the onslaught of lightning because it's incredibly painful"
I have no idea if that actually is the intent with witch bolt, that's just an example of the kind of thing where a little bit less obfuscation of designer intent could make an ability better
Yes this is definitely a disconnect. Guidelines and frameworks are rules. Certainly when people were working on Xanathar's Guide, their design briefs weren't just "Yeah just feel it all out, it's your chapter, just write what feels right to you." When a UA article comes out, certainly the bar for eventual inclusion in a published, purchasable product isn't "It doesn't matter if it's balanced, was it fun in the moment?"
There are rules for how things in the game are designed. Those rules must take the form of guidelines for the designers of the game. Is it not possible that those guidelines - those rules - could be shared in a form consumable by the people that bought the game?
Fake edit Fuck I just made the connection to the Icons in 13th Age
"You say you want iconic, we'll fucking give you iconic!"
Yeah this is why I used a lot of "in theory" type language, because there are 11 pages of monster-making rules in the DMG and none of the monsters in the MM follow them. So, not the best edition to be referencing for this whole thing really.
My mental image of this is: "Make a saving throw against your bright idea."
I kind of love it. Both in a risk vs reward kind of way, but also in a narrative action leads to narrative consequences way. I think having just baseline stunt rules for bonus damage or condition application and duration would be the maximum amount of effort needed to sell it to a more mechanics oriented player, too. I wonder if they think that just having baseline DCs for challenges is enough effort on that part. I think an Unearthed Arcana would be all you would need to expand it in that direction, rather than a whole book or skills overhaul.
e: but realtalk what you're asking for is basically the sidebars from 13th Age, where the designers basically discuss experiences they had running the game in development and how they handled that stuff