Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9347561" data-attributes="member: 6915329"><p>I disagree. That would make players and DMs alike unwilling to ever relax them at all. If the rule is so strictly worded, then any change to it would be seen as something that, for whatever reason, would ruin the game's balance or intent or make things too easy or too hard or too dangerous. </p><p></p><p>As an example, the rules for critical hits are quite plain: you roll twice as many damage dice. <em>I</em> have a house rule: the weapon's die (or one of them, if your weapon inflicts more than one die of damage) is maxed; you only roll the extra die. This is because I find it dumb that your critical hit may still only inflict 2 damage and I want critical hits to feel more dangerous. Some of my players don't like that rule, because it means that opponents can also inflict more damage on them. They accept it in my game but won't use it in their own. Fair enough--that's their game, they can use whatever house rules they want; I'm not going to complain. But me "relaxing" that strictly-worded rule hardly made me the seem like the good guy.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not sad. Sometimes the players have very good reasons why a rule needs to change.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Except, of course, that everyone here agrees these features aren't used all that often, and most of the time aren't going to be "abused" in that fashion either. Chances are, your players will try to get a ship (or contact their contact, or get an audience with a noble, or try to hide from the law) once in a great while. Two examples: </p><p></p><p>(1) There was a fairly long stretch of the game I'm in now that dealt with court bureaucracy (and other things too, but the bureaucracy was a big part of it). I have the Courtier background. Their feature is literally entirely about dealing with court bureaucracy. You know how many times I had to use my feature? <em>Maybe </em>once.</p><p></p><p>(2) I ran a game that took place along what was basically a world-river. One of the players was a sailor. The number of times he had to get free passage on a boat? None, because he very quickly "obtained" their own boat. Instead, he used his background to help him haggle with people for prices for repair and docking fees.</p><p></p><p>So my above suggestion is there on the off-chance you have a sailor who insists on getting free passage everywhere they go <em>and </em>who insists that they know someone in every port who will give him that free passage.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure--and that's not inherently a bad thing at all. If a rule sucks, then changing it is good. Or if a houserule makes an OK rule better, then adopting that houserule is good.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 9347561, member: 6915329"] I disagree. That would make players and DMs alike unwilling to ever relax them at all. If the rule is so strictly worded, then any change to it would be seen as something that, for whatever reason, would ruin the game's balance or intent or make things too easy or too hard or too dangerous. As an example, the rules for critical hits are quite plain: you roll twice as many damage dice. [I]I[/I] have a house rule: the weapon's die (or one of them, if your weapon inflicts more than one die of damage) is maxed; you only roll the extra die. This is because I find it dumb that your critical hit may still only inflict 2 damage and I want critical hits to feel more dangerous. Some of my players don't like that rule, because it means that opponents can also inflict more damage on them. They accept it in my game but won't use it in their own. Fair enough--that's their game, they can use whatever house rules they want; I'm not going to complain. But me "relaxing" that strictly-worded rule hardly made me the seem like the good guy. It's not sad. Sometimes the players have very good reasons why a rule needs to change. Except, of course, that everyone here agrees these features aren't used all that often, and most of the time aren't going to be "abused" in that fashion either. Chances are, your players will try to get a ship (or contact their contact, or get an audience with a noble, or try to hide from the law) once in a great while. Two examples: (1) There was a fairly long stretch of the game I'm in now that dealt with court bureaucracy (and other things too, but the bureaucracy was a big part of it). I have the Courtier background. Their feature is literally entirely about dealing with court bureaucracy. You know how many times I had to use my feature? [I]Maybe [/I]once. (2) I ran a game that took place along what was basically a world-river. One of the players was a sailor. The number of times he had to get free passage on a boat? None, because he very quickly "obtained" their own boat. Instead, he used his background to help him haggle with people for prices for repair and docking fees. So my above suggestion is there on the off-chance you have a sailor who insists on getting free passage everywhere they go [I]and [/I]who insists that they know someone in every port who will give him that free passage. Sure--and that's not inherently a bad thing at all. If a rule sucks, then changing it is good. Or if a houserule makes an OK rule better, then adopting that houserule is good. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
Top