288
Martials don't even get anything from a 5th level multiclass into another martial class (ttrpg.network)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 2 years ago (3 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 38 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

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

    Isn't it?

    Isn't it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    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.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
    load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years 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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    “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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Does BG3 do anything with overlapping extra attack features?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •