Talk:Raising a Family (5e Variant Rule)

• I really like the idea of this new mechanic. Unfortunately, it feels like a lot of elements to it are too-extremely randomized. For example, the infidelity check, which, while indeed an optional rule, happens outside the PC's control. They could be the most understanding, perfect spouse in the world, and yet a partner might still cheat because a die roll told them to. I would prefer if such a check were prompted by neglectful treatment by the PC.

Simultaneously, I like the "Not what they seem" rule too. But a "1" on a d100 roll is just too infrequent. A player could literally go an entire lifetime without invoking it, even though, as adventurers, the party should be more likely to encounter such weird situations. I would instead assign it to a 1 on a d20 roll. At the same time, the "who the lover in disguise is" check seems a bit... I guess I wouldn't give equal chance to "doppelganger" and "deity." That should have been a d100 roll, with different probabilities assigned to different options.

And that abuse mechanic... all the randomness problems of infidelity, but with damage as the measuring stick. And it focuses entirely on physical abuse, rather than psychological or financial abuse. I... I'd remove it entirely or rework it completely.

The "spend money to increase chance of success on proposal" thing is a bit clunky and the price range is very... 3rd edition. I wouldn't use it.

Honestly, a lot of the children rules keep to that 3rd edition feel. The "childmaking" mechanics are pretty good, and I like the quick reminder to keep it tasteful, but the birth doesn't mention using magic or the medicine skill to ease the birth. Both components are important factors in why D&D settings are typically not perfect 1:1 mirrors of Medieval settings.

Also, the entire chart is clearly geared for a human couple, despite mentioning diverse numbers of different races. None of them note that different races have different rates of maturity and pregnancy.

Again, I like the idea, and I don't think you bungle it or anything. I just think parts of it are a bit clunky, random, or poorly-thought through. Hopefully this was helpful. --SpectralTime (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2016 (MDT)

In real life, you can be the perfect spouse, and your partner will still cheat on you. In real life, you could have the perfect partner, and still cheat on them. That's life. That's human nature. People aren't rational when it comes to emotions or attraction. Still though, as with anything that's randomized in D&D, there's nothing stopping the DM or player from just chosing what they want to happen.

I was working on the supposition that the vast majority people are what they seem, and that beings who disguise themselves completely, like succubi and dragons, would be the EXTREME minority. I would expect something like that to be a freak accident, something people would never expect to happen to themselves. And, even then, the chances of it being any one particular thing are even lower. It comes out to 1 in 600 lovers could be a dragon. Or a god. Or a doppleganger. I'll be honest, I find those odds to even be a little high for my tastes, but I'm not interested in introducing a 1d1000 check.

The damage is not necessarily inflicted directly by the abuser, they only "caused" it. The damage itself could have happened any number of infinite ways. In any case, the damage itself isn't TOO meaningful as literal damage, its main purpose is to determine if the abuse is severe enough to cause the abused character to die in some way. It's an abstraction. Thanks to the rest mechanics, unless you're playing gritty reality variant, the damage will rarely if ever actually see play.

Not sure what you mean by "3rd edition" or clunky. It's simple: spend gold, slightly improve probability. I was thinking about adding to it such that if the spouse doesn't value financial success as much as most people, that it has no effect.

Nothing stops the PC from making a medicine check to save a dying partner or child during child birth. Remember, dropping to 0hp in 5e is not the same as dying. There's nothing preventing the Dm from including doctors who can be hired for their services in this regard. There's also nothing stopping the use of any form of magic. For example, a wizard could use magic to teleport the fetus directly from the mother, circumventing the birthing process entirely, and being completely harmless to both parent and child. The fact that I didn't state it does not preclude it. There's this thing called roleplaying, you see, that is intended to fill the blanks of this activity. I feel that the true elegance of a rule lies not in what is said, or how it's said, but rather what is left unsaid.

I did state that it is up to the DM to determine if other races have different gestation periods. Right at the start in fact. To quote: "It is also up to the DM to determine whether the gestation period of other races is different from that of humans." For example, if you own the book of charnal knowledge, (I think I remember the title right?) they determined that the gestation period for an elf is 50 freaking years, which comes out to 18,250 days... IF the setting has the same year length as Earth. This is why I didn't say "9 months" for gestation, because depending on the setting, that could be inaccurate to human biology, which I think should be the basis for figuring out the biology of the other races.

I'm considering adding a section about birth defects and the difficulties of raising a disabled child, especially with the stigma and ignorance associated to it in superstitious, medieval cultures, but this thing is already really complex compared to most DT activities as it is, and I'm not sure it would really add much, aside from another way to lose more money and possibly lose a character you care about. --Kydo (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2016 (MDT)

Actually, I'm also curious about your thoughts regarding PC relationships. Do you feel that this material as it exists right now is detailed enough to cover the few mechanical aspects of such activity? Or should there be a section that deals with it exclusively? --Kydo (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2016 (MDT)

I have updated the probability of a spouse having an alternate identity. The probability of each possibility occuring is,

• 0.0% The villain
• 0.01% fiend
• 0.02% vamp.
• 0.03% lyc.
• 0.04% dopp.
• 0.05% ghost
• 0.06% ill.
• 0.07% ass.
• 0.08% spy
• 0.09% crim.
• 0.1% adv.
• 0.09% fam.
• 0.08% wealth.
• 0.07% bles.
• 0.06% roy.
• 0.05% psy.
• 0.04% out.
• 0.03% poly.
• 0.02% chosen.
• 0.01% god

That is much more reasonable to me now; the vast majority of secret identities are pretty tame now, and the chances of anyone accidentally marrying a god, dragon, or succubus are so low they would be effectively unheardof. --Kydo (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2016 (MDT)

That Book

Just going to be that guy and remind everyone here that the book that shall not be named actually has a lot of interesting information that supplements some of the items on this page, and is rather thoughtful and mature for the nature of its content, such as different customs regarding infidelity, marriage, fertility/gestation times, compatibility between races and monsters, etc.

It also is technically just a generic d20 OGL splatbook with no edition restrictions, so while it is technically 3.5e, most of its tables could probably be used in conjunction with this information.

I mention it with faith that its contents can be used for good, not with the interest of actually seeing the Grope Spell occur. --Jwguy (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2017 (MST)

Hey, I own that thing! And I agree completely. A lot of this was me sort of distilling that book into an abstraction in a form that is applicable to 5e! --Kydo (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2017 (MST)