Feedback

Hey guys, First off, I've completed all the dungeons and monsters for the Princes of the Apocalypse campaign (whew!). The end is not as close as it sounds - we have a few weekends yet so don't worry. Having said that, I want to put a bug in your ear that I'm going to ask for feedback on the PotA campaign to improve as a DM. I'll want to know what was most memorable in the campaign (so I know how to handle theme), and I'll want to know what I did best and what I did worst as a DM (in general) so I know where to focus and where to improve. As anyone who has DM'ed before knows, if you prep for 8 hours you'll get about 4 hours of gameplay. So I'm already looking ahead to the next campaign. And I wanted to know some general thoughts ahead of time so I'm not wasting precious prep time. The next campaign module is Out of the Abyss which reviewed favorably on Amazon. I've read about 30% into it and it seems pretty good; about on par with PotA so far. There's a mix of dungeon/encounter and roleplay. But it does focus a lot  on random encounters via travel. Fortunately, Roll20 makes it easy to generate randomness. However I'm looking for ways to spice up travel sequences and resource management which is a big component of the campaign.  So I'm looking at house rules again. I don't want to impose rules that the players hate; that's counter-productive. So there are three things I'd like feedback on: 1) Resource Management . The campaign focuses a lot on downtime activities, and goes into a lot of detail on the materials you'll find in the adventure. However the rules on Downtime Activities in the PHB & DMG are kind of boring in my opinion. You're looking at (gp) value per hour of downtime and it loses some of the theme. Having said that, it's D&D and numbers need to apply. So what do you guys think of crafting your own equipment piece by piece? I'm talking about armor, weapons, and especially items like crowbars, torches, medicine kits, etc. Is adding complexity on inventory adding to theme or adding to boring ? Bearing in mind a materials tracker that I can implement. 2) The Core Rule.  D&D has always been based on the d20. I hate the d20 because it's a flat progression. You have a 5% chance to score any result from 1-20. It's very luck-driven, or 'swingy'. A STR 20 character's odds aren't much better than a STR 10 character's odds to break down a metal door, simply due to the 'swinginess' of the d20. I've come up with a new Core Rule that focuses more on the character's skill while still offering a fair portion of 'luck' using Fudge die. I realize that reinventing the wheel is usually not a good idea, but I feel like you guys can handle a tightening of luck in favor of a bit more sense. I'm purposely being vague on the core mechanic as I'd prefer a more open opinion of the d20 in general. To give some specifics though, this new core mechanic gives room for you to craft specialized equipment. To start off, instead of all warhammer s being the same, some can be better crafted than others, giving them a "quality level". This means you can get bonuses to attack and/or damage without having it become a  magic weapon or armor. It also means that armor can become piecemeal. You can have a chainmail hauberk (chest), leather pauldrons (arms), and plate greaves (legs) all with different AC (quality) values, and all depending on how well they're crafted and what raw materials you've accumulated in your travels (see where I'm going here?). Also bear in mind that Roll20 can calculate everything in real time so it's really more a system of intent than book-keeping; hopefully adding to theme and not boredom. It also means more incremental bonuses to attack and AC/DR, like the random loot tables you see in most video games which offer a faster risk/reward system. Further, having a new die mechanic changes how most monsters function from the Monster Manual and adds a level of threat / removes a level of metagame from the entire book for those who have read it, increasing interest/intrigue in what would otherwise be stale random encounters. This is the Core Mechanic of the custom system I've been working on for the past 8 months. It's still in the works but it occurred to me that it's a direct translation from the d20 (1-20; 1-100 in increments of 5) and would work to increase the 'spread' and make room for "power creep" that has plagued the D&D system (and every system ever created), while still preserving the 'bounded accuracy' that everyone loves about 5e. 3) Armor as Damage Reduction. I've always hated the Armor Class (AC) system and favored the 'AC as DR' system. Basically this means you add your DEX mod to AC for light and medium armor (to a lesser extent for the latter), and the armor bonus becomes a damage reduction bonus. IE: leather armor reduces all slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage by 1 while plate armor reduces all slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage by 8. If you include suggestion #2 then you can craft specialized armor that focuses on other damage types without becoming magical . Everything else remains the same as far as damage die. (Obviously feats like Heavy Armor Master stack with armor DR). Let me know what you guys think.

I had a couple questions/concerns. I like playing monks, who don't wear armor. Will this crafting armor with varying qualities thing cause me to fall way behind in AC? As far as DR goes I feel like that would be a mixed bag. Ok I have an AC of 19 so I don't take damage very often from weak npc's but the big bad comes along and now every time he attacks I get hit and he is doing major damage, so there would have to be some balance tweaks on some hit die. I really like the idea of changing the d20 to something a little less luck based. It really doesn't make sense that someone with like 10 in sneak is only successful like 50% of the time, did they forget how to be quiet? Or the guy with 20 strength all of a sudden can't help up the 100 pound ally, his muscles stopped working? I'm also in favor of a more complex inventory, just maybe in an excel spreadsheet or something we can work on outside the game so we don't sit there for the first 45 minutes doing inventory management. Alright, that's my POV for what it's worth.

Yeah Tracy covered my main concern which was I was planning on rolling a monk and didn't want to get screwed on the DR from the new AC system  other than that it's all good my end keep doing what your doing man!!  if your gonna use the system you have discussed before to replace the d20 then I'm all game in fact even if it's not I trust you judgement so I'm in!! And I like the idea of the inventory stuff as long as it doesn't massively slow the game down so to recap I'm in for the full shabang!!

My only slight gripe with the PotA campaign, and i do mean slight!,  was the factions. Writing characters to fit into what the faction would accept and RP them fittingly didn't really appeal to me I prefer free reign over my character and their backstory especially when playing my to the demands of a faction got my favourite character into a spot of bother lol not that he's too bothered turned out he has relocated and found a group of adventurers about to delve into the underdark XD only joking....... Or am I?????

1) Sounds interesting, 2) I don't really have an opinion about because I just roll with the dice so I guess either way is fine. Though I am a little confused about the crafting thing. Crafting metal objects for example cant really be done unless you have a forge at hand. But you could go back to the system where fumbles damage the weapon for example. 3) Is a tricky one. Personally I think it might affect heavy armor users just as much as lighty armored characters. Against lowly mobs you dont take any damage because your armor absorbs it, yet the big guys hit you for a butload and can't really miss you. Kragen has 11AC and thats no fun at all if anything tries to punch you. Plus, your point about the D20 and your system (probably) having big guys rolling higher more often will get people beat up pretty quick I think. Also, would you apply the same system to the mobs?

Well, I like where you are going with the idea of improving the game mechanics. I too am not a fan of us as players having knowledge of monsters and how to best deal with them as it takes away from the mystery and challenge of defeating them. Currently the challenge comes entirely from the randomness of D20. That being said here are my thoughts. You said. "1) Resource Management . The campaign focuses a lot on downtime activities, and goes into a lot of detail on the materials you'll find in the adventure. However the rules on Downtime Activities in the PHB & DMG are kind of boring in my opinion. You're looking at (gp) value per hour of downtime and it loses some of the theme. Having said that, it's D&D and numbers need to apply. So what do you guys think of crafting your own equipment piece by piece? I'm talking about armor, weapons, and especially items like crowbars, torches, medicine kits, etc. Is adding complexity on inventory adding to theme or adding to boring ? Bearing in mind a materials tracker that I can implement." Crafting our own items is cool, however not every character has a skill related to crafting. You could be forcing some characters to take a crafting skill they may not normally take just to get the benefit. However, so long as we could still hire someone to craft special items that would be a good compromise IMO. I do like adding complexity to what is normally boring and overly simplified. Just be careful not to drag the game on too long with mundane tasks. Also, reward good RP to encourage it more often. 2) The Core Rule. D&D has always been based on the d20. I hate the d20 because it's a flat progression. You have a 5% chance to score any result from 1-20. It's very luck-driven, or 'swingy'. A STR 20 character's odds aren't much better than a STR 10 character's odds to break down a metal door, simply due to the 'swinginess' of the d20. I've come up with a new Core Rule that focuses more on the character's skill while still offering a fair portion of 'luck' using Fudge die. I realize that reinventing the wheel is usually not a good idea, but I feel like you guys can handle a tightening of luck in favor of a bit more sense. I'm purposely being vague on the core mechanic as I'd prefer a more open opinion of the d20 in general. To give some specifics though, this new core mechanic gives room for you to craft specialized equipment. To start off, instead of all warhammer s being the same, some can be better crafted than others, giving them a "quality level". This means you can get bonuses to attack and/or damage without having it become a magic weapon or armor. It also means that armor can become piecemeal. You can have a chainmail hauberk (chest), leather pauldrons (arms), and plate greaves (legs) all with different AC (quality) values, and all depending on how well they're crafted and what raw materials you've accumulated in your travels (see where I'm going here?). Also bear in mind that Roll20 can calculate everything in real time so it's really more a system of intent than book-keeping; hopefully adding to theme and not boredom. It also means more incremental bonuses to attack and AC/DR, like the random loot tables you see in most video games which offer a faster risk/reward system. Further, having a new die mechanic changes how most monsters function from the Monster Manual and adds a level of threat / removes a level of metagame from the entire book for those who have read it, increasing interest/intrigue in what would otherwise be stale random encounters. This is the Core Mechanic of the custom system I've been working on for the past 8 months. It's still in the works but it occurred to me that it's a direct translation from the d20 (1-20; 1-100 in increments of 5) and would work to increase the 'spread' and make room for "power creep" that has plagued the D&D system (and every system ever created), while still preserving the 'bounded accuracy' that everyone loves about 5e. I like this idea only if the possibility of creating poor quality items are possible too. You could waste your resources and have to start over which will make it more of a "Do I risk it?" kinda decision instead of OK got the resources now let me guarantee my chances of higher damage and chance to hit increase. Next thing on the subject which is something I never liked is always knowing the item is good or poor quality. I would like it if weapon and armor smiths were more like used car salesmen. They clean up the item in question make it look like a good quality item. But without a detailed inspection we do not know. I never like that it is near impossible to get a player to use a cursed or poor quality item because we give too much information about the item to them. This would have the interesting effect of making players more cautious of any purchase, and if it is an item they made they may not even know it is low quality due to the pride in creating something. The downside is that it would put more work on the DM to keep track of the real damage dealt behind the scenes. I wouldn't even give a value to the players for how good or bad the weapon, armor or whatever is. Just give a vague description of it as fair, good, high, poor, average, or terrible. Each description could be a value of 1-3 or whatever. Then maybe after some time with the item and inspection of it you could give the true value of it to the player. 3) Armor as Damage Reduction. I've always hated the Armor Class (AC) system and favored the 'AC as DR' system. Basically this means you add your DEX mod to AC for light and medium armor (to a lesser extent for the latter), and the armor bonus becomes a damage reduction bonus. IE: leather armor reduces all slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage by 1 while plate armor reduces all slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage by 8. If you include suggestion #2 then you can craft specialized armor that focuses on other damage types without becoming magical . Everything else remains the same as far as damage die. (Obviously feats like Heavy Armor Master stack with armor DR). I am interested in the idea. If I assume correctly instead of a specific value chance to miss that value reduces the damage instead. Does that mean we will roll apposing checks to avoid getting hit at all? So for example I roll a 14 (d20 ,+str, +prof.) to hit and the wolf rolls a 16 (d20 ,+str, +prof.) to avoid getting hit. So the wolf takes no damage. The wolf attacks getting a 18 and I ,wearing studded leather, gets a 17. Damn I got hit so the wolf rolls and does 5 damage but the leather reduces it by 2 so I take 3 damage. Could work, but the fights will go longer though. And for Monks and Barbarians too I would use their Wis or Con as DR. Now if they want to increase it without using armor I would allow specific items like bracers or even loose clothing as DR but limit the range considerably, like 1-3. Thematically it can work. Also, will shield sizes affect DR as well? I assume so.

Resource Management - I love the idea of resource management.  Some of the best times I had as a youth playing DnD were affecting by simply having a bag of marbles or some oil in my inventory that was made a plan succeed in some small way.  It seems as the years have gone by the games focus less on such minutia and I miss it.  Yes, it can become unrealistic and cumbersome if you let it, so I think whatever you decide needs to be as simple as possible to not slow down the game. The Core Rule - I would have no problem at all testing out your new mechanics.  Yes, it is incredibly annoying when the poor luck with the d20 affects the game, but the reverse is also true when that convenient Crit happens and saves an ally or drops the boss before it can do something terrible to the innocent it holding captive. As for crafting our own items, I agree that sounds like a neat thing.  One of the things annoying about this campaign, which also was a neat thing to be honest, was how we seem to be on a time schedule.  The Cults working behind the scenes to destroy the Dessarin Valley, taking the keeps from us that we chose to set up our base of operations was pretty cool.  But it didn't leave much room for down time.  Downtime to learn new skills, or travel to other towns to purchase new spells, or as you're suggesting, making new gear. Setting aside the fact most people won't have the requisite skills required to make things, time and availability of tools are big considerations.  Now, on the skill front, if you want to go this route, maybe give every character one type of tool proficiency for free, to simulate things we learned growing up?  I grew up in the forest and learned the Herbalism trade at my mother's knee, before I joined the army or the local thieves' guild. I like the idea of making our own weapons, armor, and other gear.  It definitely will take some cooperation between you and us as players to keep it from becoming an exploit or a waste of time.  Pieced together sets of armor is a really neat idea too. Armor as Damage Reduction  - Okay, dual duty as AC and damage reduction?  I have no problem with that.  Depending on how the concept of patchwork armor and possible hit locations turns out this could be really neat.  A little unfair to barbarians and monks, for sure, since they tend to not wear armor.  Druids and arcane casters as well at first glance.   Maybe treat them as such: Mage Armor gives an AC of 13+ DEX, so should have 3 DR.  Barkskin gives an ac of 16, so would have 6 DR. Shields...and the shield spell, I think should not factor in to DR.  They are used for deflecting attacks, not absorbing them, so should only apply to AC in my opinion. Thinking about it, how about instead of a set DR then the DR value of armor and spells becomes a die roll, that is rolled any time you take a hit.  You can then add things like Heavy Armor Master and construction materials as a bonus to the die roll.  So a Heavy Armor Master wearing Plate armor would roll d8+3 any time he takes damage to attempt to reduce it.  The blow could have found a seam in the armor and only gets reduced by three points, or it could have been turned by an angled plate and gets reduced by 11 points.  If you do decide to go this route I think you should consider allowing a feat that provides damage resistance in some form.

You guys seem to understand the AC - DR thing different than I do. To me it seemed the armor would stop giving bonus to AC and only funtion as DR. I reread it and still read it that way. Need clarification from Ben.

Cool responses, glad you guys are interested enough to ask some in-depth questions. I've done some research and the reason people are liking 5e over the previous editions is the concept of bounded accuracy . There's a lot info on that out there that you can read up on if you're interested, but here's the concept in a nutshell: AC does not increase beyond a certain point (~20 for PCs and ~17 for monsters) while attack bonuses do. Even so attack bonuses don't progress very quickly and are still around the +17 area for players and +13 for monsters at high level. You (meaning the player and the character) feel a power progression instead of having monsters whose numbers go up at the same pace as yours and thus getting the treadmill effect; you never feel like you're becoming more powerful. This means fighting a pack of wolves at low level can be deadly while fighting a pack of wolves at high level poses no threat at all. I like bounded accuracy for that purpose, but I also don't like it because it means the only real improvement you feel on your character sheet is when you level up. Being a gamer, I like to see the numbers grow, and I like games that offer random loot tables and frequent loot drops. Making decisions = more fun (to a point). So I'm trying to find a way to implement that to some extent with D&D. The trick is that adding complexity does not always add fun, but we have the unique advantage of having computers handle all the math for us! #2 the Core Rule. As Joe suggested, the new mechanic I came up with does allow you roll above and below your skill. A big part of why I like it is that it truly represents both good and bad luck. But it uses your skill level as the starting point, or midpoint, so your skill becomes more important than your luck.  However I'm not suggesting a change to the formula of attack vs. AC. The target does not get a 'dodge' check to avoid the attack; exactly like Joe said that would bog the system down too much. So, yes, this means you could try and put together a weapon and come up with something terrible. So crafting is a gamble, but makes it important for you, as your character, to find the most favorable conditions in which to craft (like Steffen pointed out, at a forge). #1 Inventory Management. I have the same concern as you guys on this: how to make this engaging and interesting and not boring. I tried to do this before at my tabletop game years ago. Here's what I used then. Take a look but don't focus too much on the specifics. I've learned a lot in the 5 years since then and would build it completely differently; this is just to give you an idea of how I would track resources across the party (also that's someone else who picked the name Rand, it wasn't the James we all know and love!) It's my hope that time spent on this page/sheet would be interesting decision making in the form of roleplay that impacts the success of the travel phase (there is a lot of travel). Without giving too much away the module has a wealth of information on the types of raw materials you'll find in your travels. That's part of what gave me the idea to focus on that and build it out as a more engaging function of the campaign. Also to answer another of Joe's concerns: without giving too much away, the module features heavy use of NPC allies and their abilities. And in response to Steffen, yes finding a forge can be pretty important. It also gives some purpose to things like Healer's Kits, Alchemist Kits, etc; consumables in general. #3 Armor as Damage Reduction.  I agree it's a pretty major departure from the Armor Class (AC) system and alters the way the system works dramatically. That's why it was #3. Also, yes Steffen is right, DEX adds to AC, armor adds to DR. (WIS and CON also add to AC for monks and barbarians, respectively). With this suggestion, monk AC would remain completely unchanged. AC could be better called Dodge. You simply avoid being hit at all. But a DEX 8 (-1) Fighter is pretty easy to hit, so she puts on armor. With chainmail she reduces all physical damage by 6. I wouldn't change damage output as it already functions in regards to the hitpoint system. What this DR system would do is make fighters get hit more but also be better equipped to take those hits. There was some concern about the big bad who hits hard; the math on those hard hits would not change at all for monks, and only some for people who wear armor as DR. A few other things also occurred to me with this. Primarily, magic. I would classify damage into two major types and then all the subtypes that already exist. The two major types are physical and metaphysical . Physical damage refers to the following subtype damages: slashing, piercing, bludgeoning, fire, lightning, thunder, acid, cold, etc. All the things that affect flesh. Metaphysical damage refers to the following subtype damages: psychic, necrotic, radiant, poison. The things that affect your well-being. Damage Reduction from armor only applies to physical damage, not to metaphysical damage. Shields increase both AC and DR. A punch or kick would just bounce off a shield. An ogre's club would shake the shield, but without said shield would probably have shattered your arm. Also there's the fact that, historically / realistically, shields are more effective than armor in small-scale skirmish warfare. Having said all that, I'm already reconsidering the DR as AC thing. It's too much of a change and I was on the fence about it anyway. I'd still like your feedback on it though.

Nah, I like the idea of DR.  I like it a lot.  But if plate mail gives 18 AC and also 8 DR then that's gonna be outclassing everything else by a wide margin.  I admit I have no idea how to balance the two concepts though. Interesting chart.  I could see something like that making things much easier.

Plate gives DR 8, no AC.

It would turn bear-barbs into the only real tanks left imho. They get the best of both worlds, damage reduction and probably one of the highest AC in the group. Not being hit is always better than being hit less hard. I think it would be kinda awkward to balance that whole change, since it is essentially nerfing every class that relies on armor, turning them into shittier bearbarbs in terms of survivability.

Too bad you are reconsidering the DR thing. But you are the DM. Personally I think it would make things interesting. You could try a dry run and have players run in a generic dungeon crawl that gives no XP just to see if the mechanic is enjoyable or not. Consider it a prototype run of the mechanic.

That's a good idea Joe. I'm still on the fence about the DR thing. Also keep in mind, as with all house rules, if we decide it's not working we can fiddle with it more, or scrap it and go back to RAW. It sounds like you guys are all on board with the other parts so I'll go ahead and start building with those in mind. Couple more notes for thought on DR: I'm kinda thinking the CON bonus for unarmored barbarians would actually be DR, not AC; it seems fitting with the damage resistance from Rage. It's actually a lot like monsters' natural armor which would also be considered DR. 'Bearbarians' have always been the best 'tanks' in the sense that they can soak damage far better than any other class. Fighters are strangely built more for damage output than defense when compared to barbarians. And monks, as always, are about status effects. I'm not really all that worried about the idea of 'balance'. My snarky saying has always been, "Balance is only an issue in the mind of the guy who is losing." Obviously if all you're worried about is damage absorption, make a barbarian. But they do miss out on a lot of utility that fighters get (when comparing melee classes). Regardless of whether we use the DR system or not, I'll be changing the rules on armor. Since you guys are cool with the new die mechanic there's room for more bonuses. You'll have four armor slots: Head, Chest, Arms, and Legs. Each will have its own armor type, quality level, etc, so don't worry too much about how the DR system translates to the current rules on armor. I was just using those terms for clearer understanding.

If you're interested in seeing the new die mechanics there are two new macros called "Fudge-Attack-STR" and "Fudge-Attack-DEX". The mechanic is 10dF*5. This generates a range of -50 to +50 with the midpoint being 0. Obviously this would be adjusted for your skill. +30 or -30 is the crit range; a 2.5% chance for either. If you want to see the graph of odds go to anydice.com and then type this into the field and hit calculate: output 10d{-1..1}*5

Bear in mind the macros are a very rough example of the die mechanic. I would clean up the actual text to be more functional. Really, I need to learn HTML and create a custom character sheet.

Since we're talking about crafting would it be possible to put some monk equipment in the game? Like if you created a fist weapon the damage die could go off the monks martial arts but give +1 damage/attack so it would effectively be like any other weapon. Or maybe grant some kind of metaphysical damage thing like some of the rarer weapons do. You could always wield some other +1 weapon but it would take away the "cool" factor of killing with your bare hands. You could do something for armor too, a cloth shirt that gives you some kind of resistance to a damage type but without giving any bumps to AC. I also wanted to say I think the item slots would be head, neck (includes cloaks), chest, hands, rings, pants, and boots.

Oh, the slots for equipping items in general remain unchanged as you said Tracy. I just meant that instead of "I wear leather armor" you have four slots to deck out in varying types of armor; chest, arms, legs, and head. These all add up for a total value of AC, or DR if we choose to go that route. Bear in mind Roll20 will handle all the math so it's not like you really have to keep track of this stuff except when you want to replace or upgrade. The biggest reason I'm suggesting any change to the rules at all is to engage you (the players). So I figured by giving actual mechanical benefits there would be incentive to push the envelop so to speak and come up with your own creations. So, yeah, I could see taking the hooks from a Hook Horror and binding them onto some fist-wraps for a bonus to attack/damage depending your crafting skill (or the skill of some hired crafter). And then adding that to the flavor text of your attacks and adding some cool theme for your savage monk. I mean, we could just play out of the book. But 5e is very plain on its own. I'm comfortable enough with the system by now that I'd like to see a bit more complexity, especially where it involves players/characters.

Cool, you know how I love taking trophies and being able to combine them with my gear in a useful way would be nice. In an adventures league game I played once I ended up skinning a green dragon and making +1 hide armor out of it (with the DM's permission) and it just made me feel like my character had become more unique because of that. I am really looking forward to trying out these new things

Looks like I'm late for the party, but better late than sorry. First I'll say that I think the PotA campaign was awesome and the most memorable moments have to be the role-playing humorous moments, like Lorelei's critits, Rand's... condition and so on. I'm sure my build was an ass to DM, I would've gone crazy about it if I was you, so thank you for being so tolerant with me :3 I actually liked the factions and was slightly disappointed they weren't such factor, mostly towards the end game. As for the new campaign, most of you guys addressed most of the problems about ac and dr, and I trust that Ben will balance everything out; I wouldn't mind trying new dices and rules, and the new inventory sounds interesting; the only slight concern would caster gain from armor/weapon modifications, as they would be slightly behind the rest. But as I said I trust you can balance it out. Anyways in looking fforward playing with you guys the next campaign :)

I changed the fudge die macros so that they no longer multiply by 5.  The die mechanic itself didn't change at all, the rolls are just closer to what you'd get with a d20. For comparison you would be rolling against AC minus 10 (AC18 would be AC8).

For what it's worth I'm also having second thoughts about the Fudge die mechanic I came up with. It doesn't quite have the range I'm still shooting for. So it's back to the drawing board for that one. I'm still looking for feedback, but I'm completely okay with sticking to d20 as the Core Mechanic. If you're interesting in my thinking, read on, but it's totally not required reading: I'd like for the character's skill to have more of an impact than the raw die roll. With d20 that's not the case. But with 10dF the range is way too tight on variance. And I can't show crits so the die roll macro is noisy. Sadly, the built-in 'show-crit' macro capability does not work with Fudge die. So I'm back on anydice.com looking at options. The other thing I'm weighing is the "bounded accuracy" concept. The issue is that I can't give +1, +2 to attack/damage because that ruins the concept. So having an interesting resource system where you craft items with unique properties is a fairly wasted effort in a d20 system. Unless we throw out bounded accuracy and accept what 4E was all about - power creep without limits. It also ruins the 'Lingering Injury' table. At 2.5% crit-chance I was more okay with losing a hand or an eye, but at 5% it's just too much. You'd all be crippled in the first three encounters. So I'm looking at some Pathfinder hybrid where we confirm crits.

Confirmation of crits wouldn't be a bad thing I think.  You could really add in to the back end mechanic there through item crafting as well I think.  Adding barbs to your arrows would add +1 to your crit confirmation roll.  A silvered weapon used against a lycanthrope would add +2 to the crit confirmation roll.  Against a  skeleton, with it's vulnerability to bludgeoning, a warhammer would ahve +5 on the crit confirmation roll.

Why not instead of having the static +1 ect. bonus from crafting why not just open the door to more custom weapons and armour we could craft for example you could use the equipment from the mundane list from here&nbsp; <a href="http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_Equipment" rel="nofollow">http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_Equipment</a>

I like those magic items on that list James, nice having pic's with them.

I asked around on the forums and got help figuring it out. I like the bell curve on 2d10, and with the function&nbsp;[[(2d10cs&gt;2cf&lt;9)]], all rolls will highlight blue except fumbles (red) and crits (green). Half-orcs, Barbarians, and Champions would be&nbsp;[[(2d10cs&gt;2cf&lt;8)]] which crits on an 18 or higher. This gives a 1% chance for fumble (weapon break) or critical (lingering effects table (not built yet)). Since it actually increases the odds of a critical hit to 6%, this benefit replaces &nbsp;the applicable crit-related powers of the above-mentioned races and classes (higher chance to crit but no bonus damage). That is, unless I can figure out a way to only crit on a 19; that's 3% which I would call close enough and keep everything else as-is. Try them out with the macros 2d10-attack-STR and 2d10-attack-DEX .

What about characters that have multiple bonuses to damage? Do they just lose the first one?

I was just looking at&nbsp;[[(2d10cs&gt;2cf&lt;8)]], It would not show a green for a roll of [10, 8]=18 (2/3 of the possible rolls that give you 18), so it would only show green 4% of the time. &nbsp;

Thanks for checking that out Dana. I haven't had time to mess with it much.

Thought I'd let you guys know where I've gone with all the info. I did some research and it turns out the AC bonus of the D&D system is already &nbsp;damage reduction. IE: when you wear plate armor 40% of attacks will fail to deal damage to you compared to someone wearing no armor at all (AC18 vs AC10). This translates to 40% reduction in damage normalized over the lifetime of your character. Obviously this isn't nearly as satisfying on a per-round basis, but the math is technically &nbsp;true. (I have a theory that anyone who starts a sentence with the word technically is about to feed you a line of bullshit.) The 2d10 Core Mechanic is great. I'm sold, and I'm using it for my custom system. However, it does kill the entire concept of Bounded Accuracy &nbsp;which 5th edition is built around. Also, I'd have to go through every monster &nbsp; I've built &nbsp;and change the macro. So I'm not going to be going that route. I've already had to rebuild most monsters from Living Faerun to Princes of the Apocalypse to use the new template chat log mechanic, and I'm happy with them as they are. I'm really not interested in investing hours rebuilding any more monsters! The item creation front I'm still considering. You'll be able to gain most of your gear from defeated enemies. I am going to have a tracker for food, water, camp-maintenance (hot food is better than cold food, bedroll is better than hard ground), etc.&nbsp; But I think much more than that would only add to tedium instead of interest. Especially since d20 systems break down when you start handing out enhancement bonuses to attack/damage/save.&nbsp; But I'm still open to feedback.

Will we be sticking with the faction point system as an option or will it be strictly found equipment? If we are crafting our own gear can we assume it will all be mundane (aka not magic) or will we be able to enchant our gear or commission a wizard to do it for us?

Once this campaign is finished I'll ask for feedback on the loot options. Crafted gear is mundane. In 5th edition they've gone with a more Lord of the Rings theme wherein all the cool stuff was made by very powerful beings long ago. But the Forgotten Realms setting is fairly high magic. I haven't decided yet which way I'll go, kinda depends on the loot option we choose.