281
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Wootz@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

I'm curious as to how quickly BG3 rule changes will start making their way into tabletop house rules and 3rd party supplements.

My guess is pretty quickly, if my own group is any worthwhile measurement.

[-] Golett03@ttrpg.network 33 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Larian made some really good changes to D&D, then they added crit fails to skill checks

[-] teft@startrek.website 29 points 1 year ago

then they added crit fails to skill checks

Do you know how many times that has pissed me off? Especially on my rogue where even a 1 would have opened the damn lock.

[-] inasaba@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

DC 10. You roll a natural 1, it modifies to 15. CRITICAL FAILURE

I feel like it's a bit ridiculous. A professional with expertise doing the worst they possibly can shouldn't be the same as any random untrained person doing the worst they can.

[-] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

That's why I do crit fail confirms.

[-] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah, as DM I've always house ruled that it didn't make sense for a character to fail at the thing they're the best at.

Though I have been known to interpret a natural 1 as a crazy external force - like an earthquake - and have them reroll at -10.

Makes it even more fun when they succeed anyway.

[-] macmacfire@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I’ve always house ruled that it didn’t make sense for a character to fail at the thing they’re the best at.

House Ruled? That's RAW. Crit Fails and successes only apply to attack rolls and death saves. And that's how it should be.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Are those actually "crit" fails or just auto fails?

Never bothered to check if a nat one fail is any different than a nat two fail

[-] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Just auto fail. A rogue lock picking a DC10 door still has a 1/20 chance of failing the check. That's the difference.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[nervous sweating] I've always run my game with crit fail skill checks. That's normal.

Isn't it?

Isn't it?

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 15 points 1 year ago

It’s the second shittiest common house rule, assuming you mean that if someone with a +15 bonus rolls a nat 1 on a DC 5 check, they automatically fail (possibly with a worse effect than if someone with a -1 rolled a 2).

On the other hand, there are other ways to have crit fails on skill checks that are much more palatable, like:

  • having a slightly worse effect when someone rolls a nat 1 and would have failed anyway
  • having a worse effect when someone’s total is 1 or lower
  • having a worse effect when rolls are failed by certain thresholds, like by 10 or more (potentially, but not necessarily, only when the roll was a nat 1)

(The worst common house rule, btw, is crit miss tables for additional effects beyond an automatic miss when you roll a 1 on an attack roll.)

[-] Prancingpotato@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If a 1 is not a fail, why do you roll at all ? I mean if the DC is 5 and you have +15, your DM should just not make you roll (* you pass automatically). So a 1 should always be a fail.

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago

The DM doesn’t necessarily have your modifiers memorized and asking what they are every time slows down play. The DM also likely doesn’t want to share the DC. The easiest fair solution is to always ask for a roll (assuming it’s possible, generically, to succeed or fail) and to then consider passes to be passes. If you only avoid asking for a roll when you know the player will make it, then you’re likely to be biased toward the players whose characters you’re more familiar with.

So a 1 should always be a fail.

RAW this is not the case. From the DMG:

Rolling a 20 or a 1 on an ability check or a saving throw doesn't normally have any special effect. However, you can choose to take such an exceptional roll into account when adjudicating the outcome. It's up to you to determine how this manifests in the game.

My experience with having nat 1s being auto fails and is that this results in characters who are “erratically … tragically incompetent” as well as taking away player agency (Nick Brown on rpg.stackechange explained this well). Maybe you and your players like a game like that, but I certainly don’t.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If the DM doesn't know the stat your character has the highest in and uses all the time, they have an awful memory and shouldn't really DM.

[-] Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

The DM doesn’t necessarily have your modifiers memorized and asking what they are every time slows down play.

Pen and paper or even a tablet exist for a reason. Having the key stats of your player characters stuck up to your GM screen or open on your second monitor is about the best use of space there is.

Besides, it doesn't take much brain power to put together that making the rogue who's been making short work of locks the past month roll for a simple lock under no time pressure is just silly. I get if an AL GM doesn't know the characters but for majority of weekly groups' GMs this is an absolute non-issue.

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

What portion of the

  • 18 skills
  • 6 saves + AC
  • 30+ tools

do you list for every character on your GM screen? Are you running games with 6+ players? And what other value does that provide? Do you also account for possible bonuses, some of which can be activated as reactions? Do you update it when values change mid-session (like if a player changes shape, enters or leaves a paladin’s aura, or attunes-deattunes an item that boosts a stat)? Because if so, that sounds like a lot of bookkeeping for very little value to me, and if not, then there’s even less value. If it’s baked into your VTT then sure, but I don’t think most groups playing in person use a VTT at the table.

What are you listing on your main screen? I’d think that all of these things would be more important than duplicating the info PCs themselves have: having a copy of the map (with everything visible or with LOS / fog of war / lighting applied to the selected PC/NPC/monster), initiative (which could be swapped out for 1-2 PC stats outside of combat), players’ passive values, everyone’s HP + status effects, notes on NPC and monster motivations, reminders (e.g., tell the Fighter they find a note from an NPC in their backpack when they say they’re getting something or during downtime), notes related to what you actually have planned for the session, etc..

Noticing that the Rogue has been doing very well on thieves tools checks and thus not making them roll to pick a lock is a clear example of the possible ways DM bias can occur, since another character (let’s say a Wizard with History expertise) with a skill bonus that’s just as high that hasn’t come up as much won’t get that same benefit. On the other hand, if you don’t have auto crit fails on 1s, then you can just let the Rogue succeed without treating the Wizard unfairly - yes, they have to roll, but there’s no chance of them failing that the Rogue doesn’t have.

That all said, if you have auto crit fails on 1s, why are you not asking for rolls all the time, anyway? Seems inconsistent, as not asking for a roll from someone who will succeed on a 1 is the same (in terms of possible outcomes) as allowing a roll but waiving the chance of an automatic failure on a nat 1. Why not just get rid of that chance in all cases?

[-] Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What portion of the 18 skills 6 saves + AC 30+ tools do you list for every character on your GM screen?

Oh please, you don't have to make this stupidly contrived. The base attributes, skills and AC are plenty enough. You might not even need the skills outside of outlandish expertise cases as even proficient skills are not that far off. You do realize the way skill scores are calculated is extremely predictable in 5e? Save DCs come from rules text most of the time, and besides, you probably should not be doing outlandish DC checks like 2 or 40 that often for it to become a trouble. When's the last time you've actually needed to know the players' tool proficiencies? You know the rogue can pick a lock and the bard can play a lute. If they have something more outlandish, they'll let you know.

Are you running games with 6+ players?

No, because my experience tells me too large groups lead to singular players having their time in the limelight so infrequently boredom is practically assured. Even then, a table with 6 or even 10 colums is barely wider than one with 3. Like literally, go boot up Excel, paste the skill names on the left column and you'll see very quickly that it'd all easily fit on one sheet of paper. The numbers don't take up much space horizontally.

Noticing that the Rogue has been doing very well on thieves tools checks and thus not making them roll to pick a lock is a clear example of the possible ways DM bias can occur, since another character (let’s say a Wizard with History expertise) with a skill bonus that’s just as high that hasn’t come up as much won’t get that same benefit.

This is silly. The solution to this is to take note of the wizard's specialties too, not to punish the rogue with having them roll pointless rolls. Your characters are not going to have that many outlandishly high scores that you couldn't just round up these outliers and make a note of them. From all of my experience with 5e and various DMs and DMing myself, most DMs make their players roll way too many damn pointless rolls. People forget the old rule of thumb that says that you should not roll unless both success and failure are possible and both provide a meaningful outcome that carries the story forwards. If the characters are not under time pressure and they can retry endlessly, just let them have it without a roll. The rolls will feel far more suspenseful when 90% of them aren't wasted on meaningless drudgery.

That all said, if you have auto crit fails on 1s, why are you not asking for rolls all the time, anyway?

You have it backwards. You should not be asking for rolls constantly because 1 always fails, you should only ever be rolling checks if 1 can fail! If 1 can't fail (or 20 succeed) you just don't roll. It's that simple. When's the last time you missed your mouth when trying to eat a sandwich? Doubt that's happened to you any time recently. Similarly, don't ask for rolls on trivial things. You don't roll to get out of bed, you don't roll to climb a set of stairs, you don't roll to not choke while drinking. Accept that the player characters are good at what they do. A pro does not fail a trivial task 5% of the time, so don't use a die to force them to. The rogue has picked locks his whole life and picking one is trivial for him, unless there is a specific circumstance that makes it otherwise, like time pressure, risk of getting caught or a particularly difficult lock.

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

The context of this is games where nat 1s are auto fails on skill checks, though. If your argument isn’t ultimately in defense of that, too, then I don’t have any objections to your argument (other than that it isn’t topically relevant). My objections are exclusively to the idea of not asking someone to roll because they would succeed on a 1 in a game where Nat 1s are auto-fails.

In a game where Nat 1s aren’t auto fails, then I don’t have any objections. Mechanically, both approaches - whether you do or don’t ask, and how you track to determine when to not ask - are identical, so choose the approach that makes the most sense for you, your players and your collective play styles.

Some people do like crits on skill checks. Other people just like rolling dice as much as possible.

The best way I've seen it in game was a DM making it so a natural one that you'd succeed with anyways just means you succeed in the ugliest way possible.

Like, you picked the lock, but you cut your hand on a rough edge just enough to annoy you for the rest of the day.

You made the jump, but stumbled awkwardly on landing.

Etc etc

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago

That’s pretty close to the way I’ve seen it done when the DM wants a 1 to be a special number and I didn’t hate it.

A slight alteration of that is to have a successful 1 result in a complication - some of which would result in the attempted task becoming impossible or irrelevant. Maybe you pick the lock but the door is stuck or barred, or maybe you’re halfway through picking the lock when an ogre slams into it, shattering it into little more than splinters. Or you pick the lock flawlessly, but the thing you were after is missing because it was already stolen. It’s crucial that it’s something that’s out of your control with regard to the task you were performing, not that you slipped up in some way to cause the failure. It’s not perfect, but I personally like it a lot more than other implementations.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Woah, crit fail tables, ain't nobody got time for that. I like to use crit fails as an opportunity to impose a cost or hard choice on my players, both in combat and in skill checks. But then, sometimes I just have it as a no, because it's possible to make no mistakes and still lose.

Really, though, I always just thought that that was how it worked.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Rooty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Crit fails on skill checks have been houseruled into the game for ages, this is not something cooked up by Larian

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Crit fail and success for skill checks is a variant rule in the dmg (maybe even discussed in the PHB)

[-] Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Ultimately if 1 will not fail or 20 will not succeed, why are you even rolling? While there is no default automatic success/failure rule, it's a natural assumption that 1 and 20 are automatic fail and success based on the fact that the roll is pointless otherwise.

[-] macmacfire@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As someone has mentioned, "Pass" and "Fail" are not the only possible outcomes of any given roll. That's why there are numbers on the dice besides 1 and 20.
Also, the GM doesn't usually(and also shouldn't, with everything else they need to keep track of) memorize every aspect of all their players' character sheets - they don't necessarily KNOW if the check is impossible to pass or fail.

[-] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Tiered DC. I don't know if 5th has that as an official rule or it's a common house rule.

Rolling to seduce a dragon? Nat 20: he/she laughs at you, you fail. Nat 2: does a 22 hit your AC?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Golett03@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

Well yes, but actually no. BG3 crit fail and DMG crit fail are different

[-] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

What changes have they made? I’d love to know as I’m always game to allow homebrew etc at my table (so long as I’ve read the material, everyone agrees, and we roll with it from the start of a campaign).

[-] Wootz@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Off the top of my head:

Changes fall into two categories:

  1. Rule Tweaks
  2. New mini-systems.

Under 1:

  • Shove is not a part of the attack action. It is a bonus action available to all characters. Shove only pushes the target back an amount that depends on the shover's strength and the target's weight. It normally does not knock them prone unless they are shoved off a high ledge.
  • Weapons are given unique weapon action attacks depending on the weapon type. These can be used once per short rest only if the wielder is proficient with the weapon.
  • Removed the requirement that attacks must be made using Strength to activate the benefits of Rage.
  • Removed the requirement that attacks must be made using Strength to activate the benefits of Reckless Attack.
  • Fast Hands simply gives you an additional Bonus Action with no restrictions.
  • Haste simple gives you an additional Action with no restrictions
  • Consuming a potion is only a bonus action.
  • If a creature throws a healing potion as an action, it will break and heal all targets in a small radius.

Under 2:

Numerous weapons and items have systems attached to them that create or consumes various "charges" to add additional effects

As an example, weapons and items with the "spark" ability builds Lightning Charges in the wielder when certain criteria are fulfilled.

If 5 Lightning Charges are built up, the next instance of damage done with an attack role inflicts an additional 1d8 Lightning Damage.

There are many more. See Here and Here

[-] Klaymore@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Bonus action shove is so good, it lets you try shoving people off of edges or into environmental hazards instead of just whacking turn after turn. Also great for spellcasters and ranged attackers, but you need to roll for it so it's not too overpowered. Bonus action potion drinking is also really nice.

[-] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Thank you so much for this. These sounds like really reasonable tweaks and additions that I’d love to run a game with them!

[-] Tunawithshoes@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago

I love this changes and I really going to struggle to back to martial in 5e without them.

No more I swing my sword end turn.

Instead I use my Lacerate skill and hit with my sword. Then I use my bonus action to shove.

[-] BenVimes@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are quite a few, but a simple one that I've put into my own house rules is giving all Clerics proficiency with flails and morningstars.

[-] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

I love this. I can’t remember the last time a player used one of those two.

[-] BenVimes@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

Flails are just objectively worse than warhammers. Same damage die, but lacking the Versatile trait. I've played with giving flails some other sort of secondary ability but never found something that works.

Morningstars are functionally the same as warpicks, and both lack the Versatile trait. I've settled on changing the morningstar's damage to 2d4 split between 1d4 bludgeoning and 1d4 piercing to set it apart.

[-] Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I really wish they went over the weapons for the next edition and made sure that at the very least there were no weapons that were objectively worse than another. Might want to just homogenize the weapons under some handful of archetypes that have some legitimate advantages over each other.

I once played a cleric worshipping Loviatar so thematically I made him use whips as his weapon of choice. Roleplay-wise I loved it, gameplay-wise 1d4 damage is ass and reach allowing me to mostly harmlessly tickle the enemies from very slightly farther away is absolutely useless 99% of the time.

[-] BenVimes@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

The weapon system in 5e is half-baked. It feels like someone put it in as a placeholder and never bothered to give it a second look.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] kyle@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Does BG3 do anything with overlapping extra attack features?

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Regular Extra Attack and Pact of the Blade's extra attack stacks in BG3 IIRC

[-] GalacticCmdr@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

As a mainline Pallylock I enjoy that, probably a bit too much.

[-] Wootz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Not that I'm aware of.

It sounds like an interesting change, though.

I'm pretty pressed for time, but it would be interesting to do some testing on this.

this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
281 points (96.1% liked)

RPGMemes

10291 readers
313 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS