5e isn’t just needlessly complex, it is an unreferencable mess that has very poor general rules with lots of exceptions and poor standardization. The rules for traveling are so misplaced that most players don’t know they exist, not that it’s possible to find them when needed. And when there are general rules, they tend to be unfun. Stuff like crafting has no depth in 5e, it’s just time + gold = item. It might “work”, but it’s just bookkeeping there is no hidden fun.

For fantasy, I prefer Hackmaster 5e, because it keeps the complexity and detail without dumping special case rules onto players. It’s not perfect, but it’s way more engaging and characters feel way more interesting. WFRP 4e is also nice, but not as deep (it does suffer from rules being scattered everywhere). I’ll likely end up playing OSE ot some point.

@ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net avatar

I’d say it’s more of a 5e & PF problem, PF2e is much better about general rules that apply to most cases, with player abilities adding additional things on top.

But yeah, generally if you want to play 5e OSR is a better choice.

@CarbonScored@hexbear.net avatar

To be honest, I found 5e is so massively oversimplified it’s boring. Maybe I didn’t play enough to comb through books of niche rules or something.


I dunno. Every time I try to make a fighter. I have problems with the rules. Like, I wanna suplex an orc. What do I even roll?


I don’t think that’s in the rules. Like, at all. The unarmed fighting style allows you to deal damage to a creature grappled by you, the grappler feat allows you to pin a creature you grappled (which is just fucking useless since both of you become restrained), and you can make a shove attack to push a creature prone. But there’s nothing in the basic rules about an unarmed attack that deals damage and knocks the target prone.

The alternatives for flavoring are:

  • Battle Master fighter, trip attack. Technically it must be a weapon attack, but if you have the unarmed fighting style, a natural weapon, or are a monk multiclass, I’d be inclined to allow it.
  • Open Hand monk, Open Hand technique. This is probably the best alternative that is 100% RAW.

Of course a more permissive DM (like me) could allow you to make a fairly hard athletics check once you have grappled the orc and have two free hands, then resolve it as a 2d6+STR bludgeoning damage attack.


That’s actually really clean ways to handle it. I am impressed. Any chance you would have ideas about more basic wrestling moves? Choke hold? Arm bar?


I’m not a wrestler or a wrestling fan, so no clue for most of them. Bars and holds… well, I think the automatic damage to the grappled creature that is dealt with the unarmed fighting style is meant to symbolize damage dealt by various holds and bars, so that would apply here.

Airway chokes are extremely impractical in D&D; every creature can hold their breath for a number of minutes equal to their CON modifier with a minimum of 1, and that means 10 rounds. I wouldn’t bother trying to simulate that, just deal the 1d4 damage and move on.

Blood choke… well, that’s a different matter entirely. I would most definitely require the grappler feat and the unarmed fighting style for this. Say, you forgo the automatic damage to the grappled target and instead force the target to make a CON save, DC = 8 + your PB + your STR mod. If the target fails, it gains a level of temporary exhaustion (that lasts while you’re choking it), if it fails by more than 5 then it gains 2 levels, and if it hits 6 levels it falls unconscious.


That is probbaly the way to do. It doesn’t feel right to me. I think. Like, I can find you a video of a six year old choking a processional fighter unconscious in 6-12 seconds. The only strength involved would be getting into that position you know. The air choke thing kinda fits with what we observe in realmlife better than what I woudl ahve thought though. For stuff like arm bars or joint hold manuvers it is almost trivially easy to break someone’s arm with a well placed move. Pro fighters often get injured in training when they are trying not to you know. Which would interfere with somatic components at least. The numbers you talked about make sense in terms of a low-level fighter and a peasant with 1d4 hp. But realistically an arch magus would be just as vulnerable to being triangle chocked by a farm boy as the other farmers he us used to wrestling with at festivals.


The problem with this is combat balance. I wouldn’t want to give players an ability that can take out an archmage in 2 turns, no save, without any resources used.


It is unbalanced, but it is realistic. It is like those old tired discussions about a little kid with a gun vs a high-level warrior.


It’s a game, not a simulator. I mean, how would I handle fireballs then? Would I roll for lung damage due to the targets breathing in hot air (enforcing realistic consequences), or would I just disallow the spell because magic is not realistic? Or if the enemy gets shot by an arrow, would I roll for organ damage?

And of course you have to account for the fun of all players. Would it be fun for the wrestler player to take out any humanoid in two turns? Probably. Possibly. Would it also be fun for the archer and the swordsman who still have to play by the normal game rules instead of the power fantasy of a “hurr durr wrestling is da ultimate martial art” player, and have to actually use their attacks to overcome the enemies’ AC and whittle down their HP? Doubtful. What’s the point of having them around if the wrestler can just choke everything because that’s the part of combat that the DM suddenly starts simulating realistically?

Either enemies can survive a dozen arrows, being roasted alive in their armor for a minute, being stabbed with a rapier a lot, etc… and they can last long enough versus a wrestler that just choking them doesn’t become the dominant strategy, or they can be choked out in a realistic timeframe but they can also be instakilled by an arrow or a sword.

If you only take one element of the game and turn it “realistically” OP while the rest remain fantasy, you’re liable to fuck up the whole game for everybody else. Now there could be a merit in playing “dark and gritty, all damage is super lethal” games but then that’s not really D&D anymore, something like Mörk Borg might be better for it.


I think there’s a rules oversight on the choking side of things; while a creature can hold it’s breath for a minimum of 30 seconds (if it has a negative con modifier, which hardly ever comes up), the next paragraph of that rule says: “When a creature runs out of breath or is choking, it can survive for a number of rounds equal to its Constitution modifier (minimum of 1 round).” (emphasis mine) So I’d say that there’s a difference between holding your breath, and being actively strangled- the latter I’d probably rule as a second opposed athletics check during a grapple instead of dealing damage, which puts the creature down after Con Mod consecutive successes.


Absolutely. When I read the way a round is handled in 5e my first impression was: How many movie and book heroes signature move do they want to cover with this jungle of rules? “Oh, I’ve seen X in movie Y doing Z! That was awesome, and I want my character doing that move in D&D, too!”


I disagree for 5e about that. In fact many 5e players complain about the lack of specific rules (but IMO they merely want to play pf2e without admitting it).

To me, the problem of 5e is the community first, and lack of specialty second. 5e does a bot of everything. So when you’re looking for osr, you will miss many osr feature and many things are too specific or bloated. If you’re looking for rule heavy ruleset, it’ll be way too light and dm dependent.

@Barbarian@sh.itjust.works avatar

they merely want to play pf2e without admitting it

In my case, I wanted to play pf2e without knowing it. I’ve been running a DnD curse of Strahd campaign, and I’ve been getting more and and more irritated at long rests, challenge ratings being meaningless, and martial vs spellcaster balance. Pf2e solves all those issues, and I didn’t even realize till I sat down to do prep for a campaign.


I don’t have a problem of caster vs martial in 5e. And I don’t have a problem of balance either. But I know all people who do are indeed a lot better with pf2e.

To me this is a question of finding the ruleset that fits your table.


Hello! So I’m not trying to stir the pot or anything.

Have you looked at Shadowdark?



It was very highly anticipated, had a very successful Kickstarter, and he’s been very well reviewed.

The author has written several well reviewed fifth edition adventures.

Shorthand way to describe it I’ve seen is, modern rules, old school style.

I’m throwing this out there, because it has been described as an old-school variant of fifth edition.

It is so old school that you have to do three d6 down the line.

Also, there is a very interesting real Times Torch mechanic.

A lot of Osr games, put attention on things like scarcity and time this phone put a lot of attention on light.

I haven’t read it so I don’t know for sure but to me that sounds like possibly inspired by dark dungeons. Although I know that wasn’t the first game to have a very prominent darkness mechanic either.

Just wanted to throw this out here I never want anybody to change game systems. I just thought it might be interesting for people who hadn’t heard of it.


I think 5e is simple enough the issue is that its become ridiculously sprawling as WotC endlessly add more and more classes to the point that its eroding balance pretty badly.


They’ve only added one class


Presumably you’re talking about subclasses? If so, I disagree to an extent- a lot of the subclasses have a valid reason to be included, since they fit more specific archetypes that people might want to play, for instance the conquest paladin fills a niche that doesn’t really have any strong alternatives. The issue I have is power creep- it feels like Strixhaven, for instance, throws the balance right out of whack with Silvery Barbs, while Tasha’s Cauldron gives us the Twilight Domain cleric with all it’s issues. If the new subclasses were balanced well, I’d be fine with having more of them, since players only need to remember the rules for the one they’re playing at the table, if that makes sense.


I’m really looking forward to ‘Project: Black Flag’ aka ‘Tales of the Valiant’ aka ‘CORE Ruleset’, which a like-like to 5e (compatible in regard to power-scaling and adventures) that’s in development right now. My community plans to switch to it as soon as it’s out as they are cleaning up a lot of rules and pushing for a world-agnostic system that feels a lot better from both a player and a DM.

@Rheios@ttrpg.network avatar

Simple rules that can describe almost every situation are also rules that over-generalize characters to the detriment of options (everyone’s noticing the same things, instead of perception allowing more observant characters to do what they could do), over-include the player’s capabilities in place of the character’s. (Players conversational skills failing to match with those of the character they intend to play), overly abstract what they describe (a monster’s “power” or a character’s actual abilities meaning something in adjudication but nothing consistent/concrete enough in-world), or demand a DM adjudicate without reinforcement or restriction (In the absence of rules every corner case ruling risks the danger of turning the table into a debate between PCs and the DM, inviting rapid ends and either producing embittered DMs or embittered players* - especially under the “pack it up” approach the video suggests - and helping to increase combative tables in the future.)

The games that OSR takes inspiration from did a lot right in their mortal power-level, reasonable growth, real risk of danger, and humanistic tones but if you’re trying to sell me that the growth of rules that followed aren’t a direct result of weaknesses in those games? I don’t think we’ll agree.

*The “Dorkness Rising” problem, for a slightly more light-hearted allusion.


I might be misunderstanding but what you’re talking about is basically just failures of a DM.

DMing osr style games requires being more than a simple automaton applying the rules. The systems are simple to allow you to spend your energy elsewhere. I’ll use OSE as an example as that’s what I’m currently DMing.

Let’s take perception. Firstly if something matters from a fun perspective it should be obvious. For example, if overcoming a trap is fun then the overcoming should involve play, not dice rolls which are there to abstract over tedious or uncertain play. For example a large magical fire blocking the corridor requires no perception but will involve a lot of experimentation to find a way past.

Or if we are wanting a perception roll like event: Lets say players are stuck and have no ideas for finding a secret door they think is likely there. Who are the characters? not their stats who are they? Ok someone was a farmer prior? huh ok. Give them a clue to follow like “hey Jake the farmer, you notice the air in this room smells familiar, there’s a maddening scent of petrichor which has no place on a dry stone chamber like this one” see what happens. Alternative if Jake asks for a clue ask Jake to describe some way in which who he is applies to the context and set an ability check for a true or false clue. Suddenly a lack of rules is freedom for players to build up their character mythos on the fly.

Likewise for player skill stuff. No reason a player needs to narrate a conversation anymore than swing an actual sword. If a player asks me if they can make an impassioned arguement based on legal precedent, a sense of justice, and the illegitimacy of a ruler who cannot protect their vassels to the King’s guard then they make such an argument as appropriate to their character’s level of skill.


Neiter you nor the person you’re replying to is wrong, but the way I see it you’re coming from different angles.

You’re coming from the view of an experienced GM, while the person before you worries about people getting in the game or struggle with their social skills.

Imho, both ruleset have their place and everything depends on the group, what they want, what their personalities are and how experienced they are.

I would never run a table because I don’t think I could handle it if one of the players got combative, and that danger is higher when you go rules light I would guess.


I’m not experienced at all! I’m dming my first campaign at the moment. I did play as a teenager in the 2000s but that was pathfinder which worked quite differently.

It does ask more of players, and it wont work with a group that doesn’t have the confidence to ask meta questions about the game but you can definitely foster that! when disputes come up there are multiple ways of handling things, I haven’t had any bad ones but 2 come to mind.

In one I didn’t adequately communicate to the players the threat of a foe and they felt frustrated, we just rewound time and tried again after a brief chat about non combat options. In another I just asked a player what they thought was fair and they ended up coming up with something reasonable.

I think there’s a harmful view that ttrpgs are like a meal the GM cooks and delivers to the players which they either enjoy or not rather than a collaboratory effort of mutual play. Players should add to scenes etc (e.g. “Is there/could there be a window we could jump from?”), be part of adjudication when it wont kill pacing or during tricky situations.

Like all play it requires trust, but that’s true in modern DnD too with all sorts of broken interpretations of rules and zany magic items etc. All games where players and DMs are adversaries break down.


I think there’s a harmful view that ttrpgs are like a meal the GM cooks and delivers to the players which they either enjoy or not rather than a collaboratory effort of mutual play.

This is beautifully said. The kind of adversarial approach we see so often, and I see it quite often with DND, is harmful. Of course this is not the only way things have to be, but the context seems to set it up like that more often than not.

Complexity of rules and mechanics tend to lead to adjudication because of the way it can be interpreted. I find that in other systems, particularly in OSR style stuff, you get a different kind of thing. It’s not a rule, but a tool. This is kind of what I have loved about games like Mork Borg lately. Rules are simple, easily applied, and when you start to look into the world of supplemental material, there’s thousands, if not tens of thousands of additional rules and tables, you can apply to any situation. Take them or leave them. Apply them or don’t. Use them once, never or every time.

Ultimately, you do what the situation calls for to make for an interesting story, and just like you said, that takes trust between you and the players to talk about and determine what that is.


You are just bringing examples where insecure people who struggle with social skills (hi, nice to meet you) would not be able to handle it.

You kinda completely blazed past my point while confirming it. Clearly for you rules light is great. I’m trying to tell you there’s people who are not you and who need more rules to even dare to try.


But I’m an insecure person. I speak maybe 100 words aloud a week outside of gaming.

It’s not easy to enforce rules without confience, much easier to build consensus than be a dictator


The easiest way is to say “this is the rules as written, deal with it, we don’t do homebrew here” for me. The people I met in game spaces where not the type to reach a consensus quickly. I guess I’ve just been unlucky.


insecure people who struggle with social skills

Hi, also me. Nice to meet you.

This is why I run “rules-light” systems and why you won’t find me running (or playing, anymore) games like DND. The complexity of rules is just too much for me to remember and memorize. I don’t have it in me to argue and debate about applying a rule and would prefer not to interact with someone who is rules lawyering. I find that having those rules there is more intimidating to me than anything else. I feel like I have to work with rules first and then find ways to be an agent of my character within that.

Because of my own insecurities, I tend to lean on systems that require more collaboration, discussion and openness. I can’t really be wrong if we have collectively decided on a choice about our story. And even in that, calling it, our story carries so much power and lifts a huge weight off of my shoulders in terms of pressure for both playing and running a game. This is how I can skirt around my own insecurities and work with the kind of social skills that I have and prefer to use. I want collaborators rather than adversaries since that is socially much safer. Consequently, this also leads to very rich storytelling.


I envy you for having those kinds of people to play with!


It’s taken a while to find “my people.” I try to surround myself with good people both ocially and professionally. And the kind of people I like to be around tend to be good discussion partners and usually make great collaborators and storytellers. I hope you can find your people someday too! Keep looking, they are out there.


I don't understand how people can say that the original versions where ruleslite or better. They had some of the weirdest and stupidest rules ever. Why the hell would your wisdom spellsave modifier only apply to "mental attack spells", saving throws in general were a huge mess. Different level caps for different races. And don't get me started on the "To-Hit Tables" or worse yet THAC0.

And DnD isn't the only offender in this. Original DSA also had tons of weird rules.

Every new version of DnD tried to fix what most people complained about in the previous version. (Let's ignore 4e - they tried something new and it didn't work). And honestly they did a pretty decent job at that. There are many bad things one can say about DnD and especially Wizards of the Coast but the system itself found a decent balance between giving enough rules but not beeing too complicated. It just hits the right mix for many players.

Systems that use the same rules for everything don't encourage me to think more. It just means I only take the obvious solution because I know how it will be resolved. Having special rules for certain rare scenarios makes these scenarios stick out. Having some weird exception or rarely used rule thrown at me makes me engaged with the sceario even more.

@shani66@burggit.moe avatar

5e is the worst of both worlds. It is both far too convoluted while offering almost nothing to play with.


Hah you wrote basically the same thing I did.


5e has both too many rules and not enough rules.

It has very specific rules in some places. Item interactions, many spell specifics, grapple, holding your breath, etc.

It has very lackluster rules in other places. Social conflict, item and spell crafting, metagame stuff like making your own class or species.

I think a lot of people playing DND would be happier playing a different system. Just not the same system for everyone.


DND writes its rules to be as quick to read and apply to basic situations, but then becomes unwieldy in many if the non-standard cases because they didn’t take the word count to fine tune the rules work as you necessarily would expect, and thus they become confusing.

Something like PF2E (while not perfect in clarity, but much better) has much more verbose rules, but they do a better job of making them apply to non-standard situations closer to how you expect more often.


Exactly. It’s sort of an uncomfortable middle ground, but also just kind of messy.

And I’m tired, as someone who DMed it a bunch, hearing people act like broken or missing rules aren’t a problem, or somehow even a good thing, because the DM can just make something up. Yeah, not shit. I can do that in literally any game I run. It’s just unpleasant to do in 5e, yet I have to do it all the damn time to keep the game running smoothly. I’d rather have a game that either supports me as a GM, or is easier to improvise.


I think it was a different thread where I posted about how a guy in my dnd group straight face told us something like “the beauty of DND is we can just try out different rules. If we want to do a chase scene we can try it one way, and if it doesn’t work or we don’t like it we can try something else”.

I’m just like that’s not a unique property of DND. That’s just how playing make believe works. And I’d rather have a game that runs okay out of the box rather than keep playtesting as a DM, or deal with unchecked dm whims as a player.


That sounds familiar! Partly because I recall reading that, but also because it’s a frustratingly common scenario.

D&D is, for a ton of people, synonymous with tabletop RPGs. Often that means people think the things they like about playing tabletop RPGs are unique to D&D, even they aren’t.

What gets me are people who complain about Pathfinder 2e having more rules. You’re just as free to ignore them, and no one has to read much less memorize all the rules. Besides, is anyone under the illusion that players are learning all the rules to 5e?


This is why I’m switching to GURPS. It has rules for everything, but it’s very clear that you only need a handful of them, and the rest are options you can decide to use or not. I’m probably not going to use the rocket equations in the Space book to make space travel more realistic, but it’s nice that they’re there in case I wanted to.


Praise be to GURPs! It’s unfortunate that there seems to be a persistent sentiment that DMs should be making snap arbitration on a large variety of systems instead of having a rule-base that you can ignore when it gets in the way of your storytelling.

GURPS does this some much better because it does have rules for almost any genre and style you want, letting you have professionally crafted rules that have been playtested and matches to the genre they are designed for that you can use either way.


I like the middle ground where 5e is


It also suffers from not using consistent language and keywords in the rulings.

The more recent rewrites are better but there would be way fewer discussions on “what exactly does this mean” if there were consistent keywords for things.

…also I am currently writing a pile of homebrew to try and run a spelljammer game because those books they released inspired me to run a Treasure Planet campaign but didn’t give me nearly enough material.


If you got to look up rules and nobody cares or wants to, skip it. Its my advice. Use rules only if its necessary and soemwhat contributing to a fun experience.

This is universal.


This. Our entire campaign is home-brewed using the 5e ruleset, but the application of those rules is selective when it needs to be.

For the most part, we’re following them, but if there’s a rule that results in a level of attention to detail that we simply don’t care to implement, or would have less fun trying to religiously adhere too, we just scrap it in favour of something a bit more light-touch and call it a house rule.

Rules provide a great framework to base your game on, but the ultimate aim is to create an enjoyable experience and have fun, so bend them and break them when and where you need to for the benefit of all involved.


One risk with this is when you have a new player join your group. They might expect raw and be surprised by a whole kettle of home brew.

I for one would be annoyed if I joined a group and found they were ignoring the rest rules. They may be having fun but I would have made different decisions if I’d known what they were actually playing.


Every change should be treated the same : you tell about them at character creation and you tell them during the game while allowing for their set of rules on the present session if you cannot think of them in advance. Homebrew, legal rules, anything should be the same. It’s not during a game that you tell the multiclass druid cleric that the steroid goodberries dont work in your game, as he’s trying to heal someone after a fight. This actually happened to me. Don’t fucking nerf the core of a character’s mechanics midgame.


This makes sense.

In my imagination there is a large set of players who “homebrew” stuff because they don’t know or understand the rules, and a very large subset of those players are also disorganized. A sizable subset also just don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.

So they’ll be like “oh we let the wizard attack and cast a spell on the same turn. Is that not the normal way?”

But for people who homebrew with intention and thought, yeah, what you said.

@Barbarian@sh.itjust.works avatar

Don’t fucking nerf the core of a character’s mechanics midgame

Happened to me once. Built a monk specifically for cool grapple movement interactions because I hate the standard “I attack. You attack me back.” attritional gameplay that DnD normally has.

Stunned a guy, used my 2nd attack as a grapple, started running up a wall, which both me and the grappled target will fall off at the end of the turn (but I have slow fall, he doesn’t). The GM says:

“You’re running up the wall with the guy still grappled?”

“Yes. Perfectly legal according to the rules”

“You’re grappling an orc fighter”

“Yes. And?”

“He’s pretty heavy… Roll me a strength check”

Cleared it up after the game, but come on man. I explained how my character would work in combat beforehand, don’t nerf me midgame.


Lol. “He’s pretty heavy”. In 5th its size that matters. If its medium its fine. Even if it doesnt make sense, perfect swimming in plate doesn’t either, but you dont just say to a player “oh btw in plate you die if you fall into water as you cant swim” while fighting around water for the first time.

Im glad you cleared it up after. In my case, I ended up leaving for other reasons but the nerf sticked. Mind you, if I knew at character creation it would be fine. But I didn’t.


Yeah that’s fair. For the most part we’re sticking to 5e, and the consensus is always to check the rules first when we’re unsure about something and to try and implement it as intended, so we’re not losing any of what I’d consider to be core rules, like the way movement, actions and bonus actions work during combat, or spell slots and class-specific rules etc.

It’s more of our approach to more niche elements, such as the food and water needs relevant to each creature’s size as specified in the DM’s Handbook - no one has the inclination to track our food supply and consumption to the pound per character, so we instead stock up on provisions to last X number of days, and track our usage by the day. It’s just a bit quicker and easier to manage that way, and we can still implement the same effects in the event we run out of food.


5e has too many rules? If anything it seems to be lacking rules. D&D in general has too many options, but 5e often has nothing if you want rules to handle specific non-combat situations,

When systems go even lighter, it stops even feeling like we are playing a Game, and it starts feeling like annotated improv, which is very much not what I want to play. It never feels right to me as a player to be making sweeping declarations without knowledge of what the GM and the other players are planning.


Okay, explain to me why do you need rules for holding your breath in 5e. Because that’s a good example of too many rules, in OSR you would use something already existing.

And you do you, but really the OSR tend to teach players to find ways to avoid rolling altogether by stacking deck in their favor before attempting something.


For the few times your players want to swim a lot underwater OR if you use monsters designed to drown them long term


Okay, explain to me why do you need rules for holding your breath in 5e.

Because water is generally everywhere and you might go in it? Surviving poisonous gases? Strangulation? If you wanted to point at rarely used rules there’s a plethora of better options to pick. This is more like asking why do you need rules for combat.


Except the rules are written in such way that they render holding breat irrelevant. You may as well write “unless in combat a character can hold their breath. When in combat, you must roll concentration at end of your turn or suffer level of exhaustion. DM may decide to treat particularly dangerous or prolonged situation as combat at their discression”. And done, you didn’t need to invent new rules just for it, you used an existing system. You could even simplyfy it further and just slap it under concentration rules.


Frankly I could point it right back at you as the example of a good thing to have. If you need to dive underwater without equipment or cross smoke during a fire, it's useful to have a reference of how long you can keep at it, how many rounds does that take, how much distance you can cross, what happens once you can't keep at it anymore. We are talking about adventurers, it's surprising that this is somehow thought of as an irrelevant edge case.

Are we expecting that the player should always have spells or some magic scuba for this?

I really don't get what's with OSR and not wanting to roll. I'm playing an RPG, I'm up for rolling. Though in this case, the rule does not even require rolling until you are already drowning.

@Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Oooor, 1 con roll. It can be that easy


1 con roll for what? A turn? A minute? 10 meters of movement?

The value of more thorough rules is setting common expectations among everyone. If you'll just keep making it up by vibes, you don't need any system. You might not even need dice,

Nerorero, (edited )
@Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Per turn. We already have rules for difficult terrain and for movement. Adding more than that is completely unnecessary

As others have expressed pretty well, a game that fucks up its own core system is bad game design.

5e keeps on breaking its own core system. Pf2e tries to make everything work with the core system, that’s why its bloat is less confusing than 5es, but it’s still there for the sake of complex combat options


I wouldn't call that a fuck up by any measure. This seems meaningfully distinct than just "difficult terrain", since its a hazard in itself. It's not a matter of just going slow, just staying there is dangerous. Not to mention it can compound with difficult terrain.

In practice, I'd still prefer the 5e rule where everyone has at least some time they can manage being in there as opposed to just rolling con and having your wizard drown immediately when they touch water like it is a video game.

@Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

There is a survival skill in the core of the system, right?


For tracking and foraging. You don't roll Survival to resist damage so I don't think the idea is the same here.

And you know, just because it could be done in other ways, it doesn't mean the way they are doing it is bad, even if you don't like it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • rpgmemes@ttrpg.network
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • khanakhh
  • slotface
  • tacticalgear
  • thenastyranch
  • kavyap
  • Durango
  • DreamBathrooms
  • rhentai
  • everett
  • rosin
  • InstantRegret
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • ethstaker
  • cisconetworking
  • GTA5RPClips
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • relationshipadvice
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • tester
  • Leos
  • HellsKitchen
  • lostlight
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines