I am DMing a new 4e group, and I am interested in approaching the game as a "theater of the mind" style combat rather than the traditional grid format.  We are locked into doing D&amp;D 4e because of the resources my players have available, but I believe they will be open to an approach that follows the spirit, rather than the letter, of the combat rules.  What can I, as a DM, do to make theater of the mind combat engaging and reasonably consistent with the 4e rules set? I am open to suggestions and techniques from other systems as long as I can put them into a D&amp;D game without breaking the core mechanic of dice roll + bonuses vs. check number.
124227
A friend told me that he would like to try playing a gridless game next - still on tabletop, but without the gridlines. Is there any difference in the game except for movement? There are some things I don't know how to go about like line of sight, flanking, and traps and invisible enemies. Any help?
33797
As a fairly new DM, one thing that has commonly occurred in my sessions so far is my PC's starting combat outside of initiative.  For example after a telepathic conversation with a Nothic was going south, my Rogue said 'I shoot him with my shortbow'. At the time I wasn't sure of the correct ruling for this situation so I allowed him to attack and then rolled initiative to start the combat proper. I ensured that the Nothic wasn't surprised though as it was clear that these were two hostile forces trying to work each other out.   Coming away from the session I knew this wasn't right and wanted to get the official answer before next time. I came across this question . The accepted answer here as per RAW is that after the Rogue announced his attack, everyone should roll initiative and if anyone of the party go before the Rogue, then they will just move and ready an action. However I don't like the sound of this as I believe it takes a bit away from the players agency of quick-drawing an attack before the other side has a chance to respond.  Therefore my idea is as follows. In this situation again, the Rogue attacks and then everyone rolls initiative. Then in the turn order, the Rogue skips this 'turn' in the first round as they have already taken it at the top of the 'round'. After the first round the Rogue's turn then falls back into place depending on their initiative roll.   My question. Is this balanced and practical? I know that as DM I have the authority to have this as a house rule. But I wanted to make sure that this is not over-powered and that it is not in conflict with any spells/feats/abilities etc. Will it work?
120198
Are there rules for creating level 0 characters in 5e? I've been running a campaign where the players begin sub-standard and 1st Level characters are generated in-game as the story unfolds. I just made them all begin with a couple of hp and 9's across the board for ability scores (since I wanted them at a disadvantage compared to the average human, and to fail at a generic DC10 task more often than succeed).  It was a real grind, with many opportunities for TPK (total party kill) when faced with even a single challenge rating 1/2 adversary (obviously I fudged the dice a little to prevent this). Are there published rules for this?  If there aren’t published rules for this, has anyone tried doing something like this? Any first hand experience on how it has played out would be welcome.
46888
I think I've gotten the wrong end of the stick when it comes to what and when the DM should be calling for rolls when the party is exploring a dungeon.   Picture your typical D&amp;D dungeon crawl. There's winding passageways, a handful of monsters on the prowl, one or two traps and a couple of secrets. My party, understandably, wants to move stealthily, keep an eye out for traps, and watch for secrets. We're playing in roll20 with dynamic lighting on, so they can only see a few squares in all directions, making travel treacherous.   As it stands I end up having them advance a few squares at a time, calling for a new perception check every time they find a new passageway, asking for stealth checks every now and again and having the rogue roll to look for traps each time they wander down a new hall.   This feels clunky, repetitive, and subject to . The more they roll, the more likely it is someone will fail badly enough to be spotted by a monster or fall prey to a trap. However, running the entire dungeon on a single set of rolls seems to be against the whole spirit of dungeon crawling; why bother to explore a dungeon at all when a single roll has determined your fate?  I'm aware of the rationale  behind  in premade maps. In an ideal world you'd design a dungeon crawl that was only rooms, and parcel out your checks per room. But what about a cave system? There's no "rooms", per se... the whole map IS long, possibly empty "hallways". Sometimes you really are trying to navigate a large area with no obvious beginning or end.   I'm sure I'm missing something here... when, and how often, should players be rolling when dungeon crawling?
68630
TL;DR;  I want to model a strategic battlefield fight for my players to command and participate. I'm seeking advice on how to model it mechanically so that it is exciting for the players.  Background  The final scene of Act II of my campaign is envisioned to be a big battle between the army of the Big Bad and the allied forces gathered by my players. The full set of Act II runs with the players gaining the allegiance of the different factions to support them on the fight.  Now, in terms of that final scene, I'm struggling to decide how to DM the fight. In games and movies the action is made epic by having cinematic scenes of the fight happening with cuts to our heroes doing their amazing things, be it just plowing through dozens of enemies in quick succession or fighting the big ugly overpowered monster that is otherwise cause havoc among the army. I want that feeling  The set up will involve an army of several thousand enemies agains the different forces gathered by my players. Depending on what they've done during the second act, they'll have more or less support with a minimum number of regiments belonging to several faction (i.e. the silver guard of Wizardwight).  Intended way of DMing the scenario.  What I've come up with is to have the players be military leaders. Draw the map of the battlefield and have them manage the battlefield strategically and tactically, distributing the units and, somehow, enabling a dice based mechanism to evaluate how well each unit is doing. This will transform the tabletop into something similar to Warhammer Fantasy. They can choose to join a particular place of the battlefield to help either together or separately.  I have absolutely no idea on how to model this mechanically (as far as I know D&amp;D 5e does not cover this kind of fights).  Question:  What are good ways to mechanically model this kind of strategic army combat? Should I switch to a different system just for this scene or can I model this with D&amp;D 5e?  Notes on level: At this point I expect my players to range between level 9-12 and for the party to be between 3 and 4 players (this is not a limitation of the campaign, more like the players I'm running the campaign with).
46212
I've been out of the loop for a while, and I used to play AD&amp;D 2nd ed, but today I find there are a lot of different versions that have fairly different gameplay.   Can anyone summarize the really big differences, the ones (maybe top three?) that are the 'killer features' of the different editions? What makes each edition play differently than the others?
32624
I have a small group of players who don't play often and we've been playing D&amp;D 3.5.  I wanted to know if there are any significant differences between D&amp;D 3.5 and D&amp;D 4e? Do they use a different style of game? Is one better suited for certain groups? Or is D&amp;D 4th edition just an 'update' of D&amp;D 3.5?  I'd like to know about the major differences (the bard class was removed?) and about any small differences that people have noticed whilst playing.
99553
I've been running HotDQ with a group of people for about 9 months now (about 20 sessions; we're on Ep 6.)  My current frustration is that things go along OK as long as I'm narrating and asking occasional questions. But when we're in an area that's less THIS IS THE PLOT, and more freeform - like right now when they've mostly-successfully infiltrated a stronghold, and business will continue as usual while they explore/until they make something happen - it's like pulling teeth to get them to do anything.   I've formally surveyed the group and almost unanimously, they said they were extremely interested in accumulating cool powers (and hence levels), advancing the story, and exploration. And fully unanimously, they said they're having fun, but the pacing of the game is too slow... and yet any time I try to sit back a bit and say "OK, it's up to you and your characters to decide what happens next, so go for it - I'll just respond to whatever you tell me," the game slows to a crawl. (Combat is also slow, but that issue is well addressed elsewhere on this site.)   To be clear, it's not like they're timid in-character - they're fine with throwing themselves into dangerous situations and even being a bit reckless when it's in character, and they're not actively searching for traps or anything (though I think there might be some subconscious hesitation about the consequences of making decisions one way or the other.)   Two of the group are relatively new to roleplaying, three I've been gaming with for a few years, one more has played other games of DND a bit, but not with me. So it's not like they're totally new to RPGs, though all could probably be classed as novice roleplayers. I think it's more a basic personality thing - most of the players are the type who, in a classroom, wouldn't raise their hand or volunteer unless called on. When I've played with some of the same people, but with an additional player who, like me, is more assertive, more extroverted, and more comfortable with formal improv, everything went much faster because she was more decisive about making things happen - though she did tend to steal the spotlight, as one might expect in that situation, so there were times it felt like the two of us were the only ones really playing (and we got this feedback from other players as well).   I could, of course, just grab the reins more - "Ok, sounds like you're good to move into the next room. This one has a large desk you'll probably want to search. Roll Investigation." But that feels like taking too much away from the players; I really want them to make their own decisions and be actively involved.   So here's my question - given that we've talked about it, and everybody wants the game to move faster yet can't seem to make it happen, how can I get my players to act less like passengers waiting for someone else to tell them what to do, or discussing every little detail in committee, and more like heroic adventurers who can make a plan and confidently execute it until something significant changes?
91711
Last session, my DM made me roll a Deception check against another player. I failed the roll, and as a result I was forced to reply a specific way and reveal information I otherwise wouldn't have revealed to the other player.  Now I know player-vs-player social dice checks aren't a thing and players aren't supposed to roll against each other because that takes away the players' choice and autonomy. I rolled it once because I am of the view that you roll with the punches during the game and air out any issues that you have after the session.   I confronted the DM about this, saying I was under no obligation to obey any social checks that he demanded I make against other players. As even :     There are three skills in the game that pertain to social interaction, especially when you're dealing with non-player characters. There's the persuasion skill, the deception skill, and the intimidation skill. I often get asked, are these skills meant to be used against player characters? And honestly they're not, because so much of how a player character talks and feels is really just up to the player's decision. We don't want dice to override the characterization that a player is bringing to their character. So these skills are mostly intended to be used on non-player characters, whether by player characters or by other NPCs   (Emphasis mine.)  So I told him that in the future, I will not obey any social checks of this nature that he wants me to make against player characters, as that’s going against the core principles of D&amp;D.   He then said that I do not have to do so, but then I will just auto-fail the check. He didn't expand on what would happen if I "auto-fail".   Is a DM allowed to force a player to make social checks against other player characters? If the player fails, are they mandated to respond how the DM says they must?
29095
Bounded accuracy is a major feature of the new system. It promises that bonuses to rolls won't grow too much throughout a character's career. And indeed, a first-level fighter would have an apex skill of about +5 (Strength +3, proficiency +2), whereas a twentieth-level fighter would have the same skill at at most +11 (Strength +5, proficiency +6). Supposedly, such bounded accuracy allows characters to meaningfully interact with the same threats for most of their career, if they so choose. (.)  This wasn't always the case. In 3e, everything was modeled by the rules, and a level 20 character meeting a level 1 character would not require any change to the way either are represented by the system. Such interaction was unlikely to be meaningful mechanically, as level 20 characters would outclass level 1 characters thoroughly. Thus, level 20 characters in 3e were both in mechanics and flavor significantly more powerful in every respect.  In 4e, only the immediate vicinity of PCs was ever modeled, and there was no such thing as "level 1" people near them by the time they'd hit level 30. If they were to be modeled at all, "low-level" creatures would be represented as minions of higher level (For more on this particular reasoning see , though it's not that important to the question at hand). There were no conclusions of relative power level to be drawn from the mechanics, even though the numbers kept on growing, but flavor of becoming demi-gods at high levels preserved.  In 5e, it appears that the approach has moved back to modeling the whole world, as the implementation of flat math indicates. But what about the flavor? Is the world's greatest athlete at +11 really only capable of winning about 3/4ths of the time against a village strongman at +5? If that is not the case or the intention, how is this apparent disconnect reconciled? Is comparing them in such a way actually valid?  If it is, indeed, the intent of the system (please provide some quotes if possible) that even at high levels PCs do not straddle like colossi over mere mortals, it is a serious departure from the past two editions I'm familiar with. As a qualitative change, it would impact the way I treat high-level characters and the role they play in the world, much more so than different class features or spellcasting methods of a new edition.  Does the bounded accuracy approach mean that max-level characters are no longer demigods compared to starting characters in everything other than killing?
101051
My first version of D&amp;D was 4th Edition and one of the things that was new to me during the Next playtest period was the inclusion of Hit Dice (which I understand were present in earlier editions). On the surface, they seemed intuitive enough: Hit Dice are tied to how many hit points a character has overall.  However, I always seem to have trouble with Hit Dice in relation to healing. In 4e, healing means you expend a Healing Surge and regain a number of hit points equal to your Healing Surge Value. In Next/5e, the amount you heal is tied to your Hit Dice. While I guess it makes sense that you recover hit points based on your Hit Dice, it seems that I always have a mental disconnect when I want to heal (a positive thing) and I have to think about getting hit (a negative thing). I know it may sound trivial especially if you are one who intuitively gets it, but it has been a problem for me as I often waste 5 seconds or so searching my character sheet for "Heal Dice" or something similar before I remember that I'm looking for "Hit Dice".  To my disappointment, the name has remained Hit Dice through the playtest and into the final version. I've really tried to brute-force memorize this, but for whatever reason I have a hard time associating Hit Dice with Healing. Are there any tips, tricks, mnemonic devices, whatever that can help me and other 4e players remember this?
92072
For years, I've had trouble keeping the players engaged in the narrative of combat and what happens during their turns. After the first 4 turns or so, it becomes hard to imagine what everyone does and even my players forget about their allies, and I forget about the villain's allies as well. After a couple rounds it starts becoming a &quot;you hit with a raise, well, throw 1d6 more&quot;, and I'm left wondering how I can make things seem more dynamic and cool, however I find it very hard to wait for players to end turns, throw dices, and then proceed to imagine and narrate what they do, it also makes players frustrated as they just want me to be down with other player's narrative and move on to their own turn.
96249
While I've been running my campaign, I'm starting to get stumped. I am playing with a party of four, and we recently switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder, but the problem was the same in both situations.  No matter what I throw at the party, they seem to have no problems. Even if I put them up against something that is supposed to be 'Epic' or 'overwhelming' in terms of CR, they make out just fine. The one exception to this is when I had several encounters in one day that taxed them to near death. Usually I have about two encounters a day, but that day I had four encounters, with two of them being APL+1 and the other two being APL+2, and that was challenging. But other than that nothing seems to faze them!  How can I make the game more challenging without making it harder?  Just for reference, the party is fairly standard, and low level (level 4):   Wizard (tends to resort to mind-affecting spells, or grease if the creature is immune) Cleric (heals a lot, but always has spells / healing left over) Rogue (sneak attack, of course, which is more potent in Pathfinder) Fighter (gets enlarged and in-charge'd)
119883
Old 1E player now getting back into 5E.  What are HIT DICE?  I understand hit points and a 3rd level player has rolled 3 times for HP ( I do like the MAX at first level and then roll option)  but what are Hit dice and why do they matter?
90518
The rules packet does not provide any specific rules about flanking.  However the rule does say that the DM has lots of leeway in deciding when to give advantage or disadvantage in combat.  Should it be understood that flanking always gives advantage, or is the DM supposed to only give advantage when there is "clever flanking"?  What is the best way to handle "flanking" in D&amp;D 5e?
103271
I'm pretty new to DM'ing and was just wondering if there would be a way to start the hoard of the dragon queen adventure with a group of 4th level characters?  There don't really seem to be any modules for that level range yet.  We just finished a short module that took our party to level 4, but id really like to play through this adventure because it seems awesome. Also I couldn't really find any other ones that start around that level so rather than re-roll characters we'll just start a little of the way in.
65796
I'm running the Storm King's Thunder campaign, and we are at the portion where the PCs get an airship to travel around in, the airship is about 1000ft in the air. There are approximately 5-6 lvl 7 PCs, and they have 3 or 4 hard encounters a day. There are two wizards, a warlock, ranger, paladin, blood hunter, sorcerer, and fighter. For the most part, they have had fun with the different weapons and enemies they have faced; however, I find that one or two spellcasting PCs have been using spells such as mind sliver, polymorph, and hypnotic pattern to defeat more challenging encounters, such as one with a roc and wyvern. They make the creature make saving throws with hypnotic pattern and cause the enemy to fall to its death, and using mind sliver makes it even harder, especially on low wisdom creatures like rocs. Or with the polymorph spell, they cause the enemy to become a fish or chicken and throw it off the edge, and since the damage carries over, it kills the monster. I realize it was legal and made fights funnier, but it does get annoying when it's happening in almost every fight. Are there any suggestions on how to keep them on track without them making every encounter easy? I thought of giving the monsters immunity to these effects, but it just sounds like a bad excuse for me not being prepared.