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

RPGMemes

10271 readers
213 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Wootz@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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 38 points 1 year ago (30 children)

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 (11 children)

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 (2 children)

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.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

That is why they ditched critical failures and success in tabletop D&D.

My guess is they kept it in bg3 so there would be a chance of failure on everything including the DC 2 rolls, but to be honest I don't think that chance of failure really adds anything to the game.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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) (2 children)

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 (1 children)

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

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.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People on the same turn sharing initiative can go at the same time. Drinking a potion is a bonus action. Those are the ones I've incorporated.

[–] fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It makes much sense and avoids action spamming I’ve seen at tables that let a potion be used for free. I know Crawford intended potions to be an action since they’re “bottled spells” but it results in players never using them in fights. Also less squishy PCs makes for far for entertaining encounter design (read that as additional peril haha).

[–] Kryomaani@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“bottled spells”

"Bottled spells" that don't recharge on a long rest but instead cost an arm and a leg and heal for a pittance, basically ensuring that in the time that it takes to gulp one down you've already taken twice as much damage than what it'll heal. I guess I get the idea but RAW, the potions are just awful outside of last resort to bring up downed characters (and that's assuming your GM has no problems making an unconscious character forcibly drink them).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BenVimes@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 (1 children)

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 (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

meanwhile in legally distinct dragon game: Hmm yes I will dip fighter for access to a lv 4 reaction strike on every single character i make.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also in legally distinct dragon game: Watch in amazement as I use my staff/dagger/rapier as a shield!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FancyManacles@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Back in my day we got an extra attack at 6th, 11th, and 16th level, and each one was at a cumulative -5 penalty, AND WE LIKED IT!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] zakobjoa@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gerusz@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

TBF the only class that gets more than one extra attack is the fighter.

Now of course it would make sense to sum up the levels you have in classes that get multiattack, and if you have >=5, you get an extra attack. But since attack progression is far less regular than spell slot progression, getting something approaching regularity beyond that would be difficult.

Now if OneD&D wanted to boost martials and introduce some sort of a multiattack scaling across multiclassing, here is how that could work:

  1. Introduce features called Special Attack and Signature Attack. (Simply because just stacking extra attacks in a way that gives a bunch of half-casters extra attack at level 5-6 would give full martials a ridiculous number of attacks per turn at higher levels.) Special Attack is an attack that deals double weapon damage (which stacks with crits), but other extra damage sources like smites don't get doubled. Signature Attack is a Special Attack that can also force a save, either a STR save vs. being disarmed, a DEX save vs. being knocked prone, or a CON save vs. being dazed. You pick which one when you get the feature, and you can change it on level up.
  2. Introduce an attack progression table which details how many regular and special attacks you get per warrior level. (IDK if Lemmy's MD syntax allows tables in lists, so see the table below.)
  3. Like for spell slots, some classes (fighter, barbarian, monk) count as whole classes, others (paladin, ranger, artificer) count as half, and some caster subclasses (bladesinger, swords bard, hexblade, etc...) count as third.

The table:

Warrior Level Normal attack Special attack Signature Attack
0 1 - -
3 2 - -
6 1 1 -
9 2 1 -
12 1 1 1
15 2 1 1
18 1 2 1

So:

  • A level 12 single class fighter gets 1 normal, 1 special, and 1 signature attacks.
  • So does a fighter 6 / barbarian 6.
  • A level 12 paladin counts as a level 6 warrior so they get a normal and a special attack. (Also, in OneD&D the divine smite is a bonus action spell like every other smite, so the level 18 paladin can't go too nuclear with 3 smites per turn.)
  • A fighter 6 / paladin 6 counts as a level 9 warrior, 2 normal attacks and 1 special attack.

Of course this could be refined a bit further, e.g., instead of a generic "special attack" they could pick power attack (must be a strength-based attack), precise strike (must be a dexterity-based melee attack), or pinpoint shot (must be a dexterity-based ranged attack) and they could swap this one on level-ups too. But I think this should be a start.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Not going to lie, I'm already taking notes. I like that in general, if you make the right choices, it's easy to make even wizards feel a lot less squishy, which would make me feel a lot more comfortable not pulling punches in my game. One of my favorite changes so far is the wild shape recharge on short rest for druids.

It's gotten me thinking about how to fix some other broken classes again, like making Ranger not fucking suck, and fixing the MADness of Barbarian. Fight me IRL, having the Barb's unarmored defense dependent on dex instead of strength is dumb as hell when the barbarian is clearly a STR/CON class, that would be like having the Monk's unarmored defense being dependent on Constitution. "So, what, Barbarians should just deflect attacks by flexing extra hard?" Yes.

[–] Lazerbeams2@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Didn't druid already get wildshape on a short rest? I do agree that barbarian Unarmored Defense is a bit lackluster though.

I get what they were thinking. Monk gets to add Wisdom because their awareness let's them dodge, so it should be roughly equivalent to let a barbarian add Constitution because their natural durability makes them harder to hurt. Dexterity being one of the main Ability Scores for monks throws this out the window though

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Crozekiel@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Ummm... Barbarian Unarmored Defense is based off Con, not Dex. They just didn't take away the default Dex bonus to AC that every class in the game gets. They shrug off damage by having a high Con. Barbarians are pretty good as it is, if you let them completely dump Dex and give AC from Str, they would be broken AF... 18 AC at level 1 with a shield under point buy system, and immediate jump to 20 AC at level 4, with no reduction in damage output at all. Possible to be 20 AC at level 1 literally completely naked (no shield) with rolled stats, and 18 isn't even entirely unlikely...

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Brutticus@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I usually offer players with multiple instances of extra attack a +1 to their to hit, and Im considering offering +1 crit range as well. This is a real sticking point to me in 5e, the lack of viable build variety.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] uralsolo@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

Fractional BAB wins again. I like D&D 5 just fine but for stuff like multi-classing and creating really complex builds D&D 3.5 is the superior system.

load more comments
view more: next ›