Talk:Contemporary Drugs (5e Other)

Replying to admin: "This page is of questionable balance. Reason: Needs to be rewritten to use D&D 5e standards. Applying temporary bonuses and penalties to base ability scores is not _broken_ but misunderstands basic principles of 5e design."

How about making this page for 3.5 edition instead of 5e? It's true that I am not very knowledgeable in what 5e basic mechanics are. But I believe the ability score bonuses would work just fine for 3.5. Otherwise, we can just leave this page as it is and hope somebody will correct it for 5e balance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Call Me Snake (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

My knowledge of 3.5e is shaky, but I do know it has the sorts of things this page is going for with its modifications to ability scores and bonuses to certain rolls are done in 3.5e. For 5e, the game generally almost never has temporary static bonuses/negatives to ability scores and checks. Besides that, I think this page may qualify for use of the {{Design Disclaimer}} but am unsure if this is too different than standard 5e design. --Blobby383b (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2024 (MST)

It shouldn't be too hard to convert it to 5e, just time-consuming. The core books explain basic mechanics such as disadvantage on ability checks, exhaustion levels, and conditions such as Incapacited, and so on that can be used.

If I get chance today, I'll have a crack at it (if you pardon the expression). Marasmusine (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2024 (MST)

Very important note - I came to realize this years ago when working on 3.5e flaws/traits - A player should never be forced to have their character take a dose (for example by failing a wisdom save). Addiction should always be roleplayed. If the PC is "addicted" and presented with the opportunity to take a dose, the player should always be allowed to say no. This is to do with PC agency and potential disruption to the whole party ("well, our cleric is incapacited with opium again. I guess we.. uh... leave him here? Or wait around doing nothing for a few hours? What a gripping adventure."). Marasmusine (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2024 (MST)

It is a fair point of course, although I would not look at it this way. I mean, it could also be perceived as funny rather than frustrating ("well, our cleric is incapacited with opium again. Lol"). Also, a complete incapacitation following these rules is really a rare outcome, most often it is simply about temporary bonuses/maluses. I guess the hard part for penalties like these is to create an annoyance that is not so significant to make everybody simply outwait it for a couple of days (go to rehab of sorts :D), which would just hamper the game, but could influence the outcome of this or that interaction in a meaningful way. I don't think here the player is 'forced' - he could make a conscious choice and take the risk by entering the e.g. opium den, or he can simply wait outside and let the rest of the party to do the task, not exposing himself to temptation. I think it is quite similar to IRL decision-making by an addict who wants to stop. I wouldn't like to have a punishing mechanic but a mechanic to be an incentive for roleplay. The whole point of having optional rules like these (IMO) is to provide a mechanical underpinning in order to not leave everything to pure roleplay which might be arbitrary or completely neglected by some players. Call Me Snake (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (MST)

It would be very nice if you would find time to correct bonuses. I would like to do it myself but I am kind of afraid that I will again write something that would not be suitable for 5e (I play 3.5 normally). Please feel free maybe to make bonuses more interesting than just based around ability scores - especially with your better knowledge of the system? It would be only fair if you were doing 3.5 flaws, which were an inspiration for these mechanics to a large extent :) Call Me Snake (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2024 (MST)