D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[ezo]

Ok, now I've got some time...

Group checks are the tricky bit, because it depends entirely on the DM. Some DMs just look for an average value, others will penalize the entire group for one low roll.

Unfortunately, I can't work on things dependent on how some DMs might houserule the use of Group Checks. Group checks are simply if the majority succeed (half or more), the group does.

I have just noticed a consistent frustration that even when working to avoid them, those two skills are just too consistently useful for everyone, compared to many other skills.

I wonder why? As I posted earlier, only the scouts and point PCs generally use stealth or have to make perception rolls. Once in a while, perhaps the entire might need to sneak or are subject to an ambush all at once.

The one issue is Perception used for finding secret doors and such. IMO using Investigation would be more appropriate, but there is always the Investigation vs. Perception issue...

Edit: But again, the point is more I don't consider this a poor design decision from WoTC as much as it is just a natural outgrowth of the culture of the game. It is the same as everyone being effective in combat. A PC who couldn't contribute in combat would just be bored for long-stretches of the game.

IMO Athletics would be the most important skill in combat. Stealth is niche in combat, and perception the other side of it. So, once combat begins, they don't carry as much value IME.

Ah, trading breadth for depth. Hmm. I'd have to consider that really hard. Most characters get only 4 skills, and it would make something like expertise in Perception common for elves. I'm not sure I would want to have people getting only two skills, but each was expertise.

Partially because, as much as I love the idea of making "concepts" the truth of the matter is many players are motivated by success. A lot of people will feel a pressure to forgo getting expertise in a "concept skill" like medicine or history, or even getting the skill at all, and instead get a "better" skill.

Yes. Expertise is great, but comes at a fairly steep cost with this idea. Four skills always felt a bit limiting to me, but once I accepted the idea that regular ability scores include the possibility of some "training", with skill proficiency actually more along the lines of additional training.

It is sort of a messed up system IMO, and took me a while to really simply accept it.

Yeah, I have a similar rule I call "pushing yourself" which is currently set to increasing speed by 5 to 10 ft. It hasn't seen much use yet though.

Our sprinting rules don't often come up either, rarely enough that we wonder why bother, right?

Part of that I would chalk up to the cost. An action is expensive, and even if a character wants to make that distance, they may reason that only moving then dodging is better, to make them less vulnerable. Another part of it I would say is the static nature of DnD combat, which is a bear to try and change. But, once two melee characters are in range of each other, moving is not only not giving any value, but also is punished by Opportunity Attacks if you move too much. That starts getting into deep, structural changes of the combat system though. Which is a bit beyond the purview of this discussion I feel.

Yep. Tactical movement in combat is rarely used or beneficial for non-Rogues and non-Monks IME. The combat system is simplistic of course, by design, but I agree, best left for another time...

True enough. I'm not sure if I'd want the help action in terms of lifting, as much as I would want to combine lift numbers, because I'm not sure how you could help someone else exert more strength. The goal is to increase your limit after all. Sort of like how I sometimes struggle to let people use Help when someone is trying to see if they know something. It always feels a little odd.

For "numbers", combining is best. However, for something like breaking down a barred gate (wide enough for both PCs), Help works well IMO.

As far as helping a PC with a knowledge "check", Help still makes sense. How many times have you gotten a song stuck in your head, but couldn't recall the name of it? You KNOW the song! But it is just escaping you. You hum a bit to another person, who says "I don't know it, but it reminds me of blah blah blah", to which the PC making the check makes the connection and recalls the information successfully.

• Well, I really do like the sherlock holmes style "read a scene" ability I've mentioned before.

I must have missed that. Do you recall the post or can you provide a brief summary?

• Mundane healing from the medicine skill seems obvious, especially a way to combat diseases and poisons without that being solely the realm of spells.

MOST DEFINITELY! We use a DC 15 Wisdom (Medicine) check to heal 1d6 damage, requiring "a few minutes" generally after comabt. The Healer feat simply grants the +4 and makes the check automatic when used. If used within a minute of a PC failing a poison save (or disease), a successful DC 15 check will allow that PC to re-roll the save (once).

• For Sleight of Hand, I'm always a fan of stealing something off an enemy who missed you with an attack. I actually gave Thieves a high-level ability that let them steal a weapon from an enemy that misses them with an attack, which lets you play that excellent gag of being threatened by an enemy who realizes they are holding a harmless item.

LOL that could be funny!

• Extended reach might be a little gonzo, but I've often allowed people to thrown any type of weapon. I could see a check to increase the range of a thrown weapon.

Sure, improvised weapon rules work for allowing you to throw any weapon, but if you want it to count "as the weapon" it wouldn't work as well for me. Weapons deal the damage they deal due to their design, so using a weapon, so being able to throw something not meant to be thrown for "full damage" seems wonky.

• Insight is tricky, but I could see an ability where a character could roll to get a single true fact about an NPC or a faction. I usually use insight for telling if people are lying, or sometimes to see if you can figure out where someone might have [X] if you know them.

Those are the typical uses for Insight, "is someone lying? what is there motive? what might they be hiding? are they trustworthy?"

For martials, allowing an Insight check to figure out an opponent's strategy, perhaps granting advantage on your next attack or imposing disadvantage on their next attack. However, the one thing I don't want is to bog combat down with additional rolls.

• Expanding that into a more holmsian "from her [blank] you realize the Countess has touched the demonic arts at least once before."

Sure. Insight or Investigation (noticing the details about someone, something, or someplace) could work.

• Could be neat to have a performance ability where you can essentially pause the combat. You roll, and any enemy you succeed against is locked in place, watching you, while your allies are free to move. However, your allies cannot attack or cause an enemy to make a saving throw, or it breaks the performance and the battle resumes with whoever's turn was after yours (skipping everyone else)

So, the Guardians of the Galaxy dance off?

• I did like the idea that if a character was taking damage over time (like from alchemist fire) they could forgo rolling to get rid of the effect, and instead roll a constitution save to instead guarantee minimum damage. So, if you are on fire, and with a low dex you don't think you could put out the flames, instead you can roll con and instead of taking 3d6 damage, you take 3 damage.

Sure. However, I always thought having to use your action for stuff like this is overkill. One thing I wish WotC did was have "movements" instead of just moving your speed. "Moving" to put out a fire on your body seems more appropriate than giving up your action for the turn.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ok, now I've got some time...


Unfortunately, I can't work on things dependent on how some DMs might houserule the use of Group Checks. Group checks are simply if the majority succeed (half or more), the group does.


I wonder why? As I posted earlier, only the scouts and point PCs generally use stealth or have to make perception rolls. Once in a while, perhaps the entire might need to sneak or are subject to an ambush all at once.

The one issue is Perception used for finding secret doors and such. IMO using Investigation would be more appropriate, but there is always the Investigation vs. Perception issue...


IMO Athletics would be the most important skill in combat. Stealth is niche in combat, and perception the other side of it. So, once combat begins, they don't carry as much value IME.

We don't use grappling much at my tables. It seems other than people planning to use "cheese grater" tactics, it (and therefore athletics) just don't come up.

I do agree with the investigation vs perception issue, and it is something I address at my own tables. Again though, that ends up being a table-centric consideration. If people allow investigation to work seperately then the value of perception is lessened. If they don't, it rises.

I think this comes back to my greater point though. This isn't really something I can lay at the feet of WotC. It feels much more like an issue caused by table cultures and holdover habits from older editions.

Yes. Expertise is great, but comes at a fairly steep cost with this idea. Four skills always felt a bit limiting to me, but once I accepted the idea that regular ability scores include the possibility of some "training", with skill proficiency actually more along the lines of additional training.

It is sort of a messed up system IMO, and took me a while to really simply accept it.

More robust skill training could be a nice middle ground for this. The issue I've always found is that 250 uninterrupted days of training (per RAW) is just a nightmare to fit into a campaign.

Also, would this take into account the Skilled feat? That could essentially read "gain expertise in three skills" with this system.

Our sprinting rules don't often come up either, rarely enough that we wonder why bother, right?

Yep

For "numbers", combining is best. However, for something like breaking down a barred gate (wide enough for both PCs), Help works well IMO.

As far as helping a PC with a knowledge "check", Help still makes sense. How many times have you gotten a song stuck in your head, but couldn't recall the name of it? You KNOW the song! But it is just escaping you. You hum a bit to another person, who says "I don't know it, but it reminds me of blah blah blah", to which the PC making the check makes the connection and recalls the information successfully.

True, that can work. I just tend to run into it where a character, I don't know, sees a ring on someone's finger with a symbol, and wants to identify it. It is all in their head, and it doesn't make sense for them to turn to their buddy and say "doesn't that symbol on that ring look familiar?" when standing in front of the person.

My general rule of thumb is that anything physical, help action is easy. Things that are mental get split into two camps. Exploration/Ruin stuff? Help is fine, it is like doing research together. Social things involving people? Tell me how you help in a way that makes sense, and you can do it.

I must have missed that. Do you recall the post or can you provide a brief summary?

Basically having a Investigation check where you look over a location, and then "replay" the scene. So, you could look over the sight of an ambush, and then get an accurately narrated "vision" of what went down. You see Sherlock do this sometimes in some movies and shows, where he starts playing a scene around him, putting people in their places and "seeing" actions and such that he just seems to know.

I would probably limit it to a 1/day or 1/SR, but I like having it as a fairly powerful investigative tool.

MOST DEFINITELY! We use a DC 15 Wisdom (Medicine) check to heal 1d6 damage, requiring "a few minutes" generally after comabt. The Healer feat simply grants the +4 and makes the check automatic when used. If used within a minute of a PC failing a poison save (or disease), a successful DC 15 check will allow that PC to re-roll the save (once).

scribbles notes

LOL that could be funny!

Sure, improvised weapon rules work for allowing you to throw any weapon, but if you want it to count "as the weapon" it wouldn't work as well for me. Weapons deal the damage they deal due to their design, so using a weapon, so being able to throw something not meant to be thrown for "full damage" seems wonky.

It works for me, because usually the person can't get it back. Sure, go ahead and throw your greataxe, but then you are going to have a hard time getting it back to swing in future attacks.

Those are the typical uses for Insight, "is someone lying? what is there motive? what might they be hiding? are they trustworthy?"

For martials, allowing an Insight check to figure out an opponent's strategy, perhaps granting advantage on your next attack or imposing disadvantage on their next attack. However, the one thing I don't want is to bog combat down with additional rolls.

Yeah, I wouldn't do that except as a class ability. But I have noticed my players LOVE Zone of Truth, so I figured a "you learn one true thing without having to ask them" ability would be something they would gobble up.

So, the Guardians of the Galaxy dance off?

View attachment 362933

Legitimately, yes. There was also a great scene in Hellavu Boss, where one character had a whole musical number, called "Look at this" It is a little goofy, but if you are a bard or something similar, this might be an ability you are 100% looking for. It would need to be limited to once per combat, and maybe even once per day though, because that level of "everyone else gets a free turn to position and heal" can be BRUTAL

Sure. However, I always thought having to use your action for stuff like this is overkill. One thing I wish WotC did was have "movements" instead of just moving your speed. "Moving" to put out a fire on your body seems more appropriate than giving up your action for the turn.

Yeah, that is part of why I thought of this, because losing an action can be rough.