Adjudicating Melee - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 iserith Mar 03, 2015 12:02:34	"How to Play" (Basic Rules, page 3) states that the basic conversation of the game goes like this: 1. The DM describes the environment. 2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. With that in mind, consider the following interaction. DM: The orc thumps his greataxe against his hide armor, roaring and shouting curses in the low tongue as he challenges you to fight. What do you do? Fighter: "I'm going to kill you and take your pie!" I close the distance between the orc and myself, bringing my greatsword down on him! DM: The orc raises up his greataxe to defend himself, a scowl on his porcine face. Make an attack roll. Fighter: rolls 11. DM (orc has AC 13): Your sword clashes with the orc's greataxe with a terrible clamor. The force of the blow nearly brings the orc to his knees. Roll just your weapon damage dice - then the orc is going to get a counterattack as a reaction before taking his turn. What do you think of this DM's ruling? Do the rules support such a ruling? How would you take it if you were playing the fighter? Would you prefer to be given a choice of missing outright or doing damage but opening yourself up to a reaction attack? What if the fighter missed by more than two? (Feel free to make whatever other assumptions you want about the situation, just make a note of what assumptions you're making to avoid someone hitting you with a "Well, actually...")
#2 Ranthalan Mar 03, 2015 12:11:59	If I wanted to play a game focused on simulating melee, then I'd like it. If I wanted to play a game focused more on story and pacing, I would prefer the simpler approach. Rule 0 supports it, but then that supports everything. If I were doing it, I'd be inclined to disregard the weapons damage and just apply the attribute bonus; the weapon was stopped, after all.
#3 bawylie Mar 03, 2015 12:47:43	For me, I don't mind that ruling. I'd probably go further myself. An option to land an attack on any attack roll greater than 1 if you either lower your defenses (next Attack on you made w/advantage) or permit a counter attack. I could see fighters, barbarians, & rogues pushing the limits, gambling on defeating a for all the more quickly. The tension there, and choices available to the players, is something I like in my games.
#4 Istbor Mar 03, 2015 13:04:31	Since it was a basic attack nothing really fancy or additive than a more flowery "move and swing", I would have had the miss stand, and just describe the parry of the blow with the Orc shoving the blade free of his axe and countering. Kind of like a mini-duel (regardless of who may have been next in order). There has to be some more action desired or something more complicated being attempted by the player than that to fudge the roll. Example, LMoP. Our fighter destroyed the wooden walkway over the stream in the Goblin cave trying to cause the bugbear bearing down on them to fall to the floor. The Bugbear saved and grabbed onto the far ledge. Our fighter then decided he wanted to make a running leap and attempt to lodge his sword into the exposed back of his enemy. Although at the time he actually failed the roll because he was going that extra mile to try something unique and more heroic than just move and stab (since he knew full well he would stand a fair chance to also fall into the stream below) I let the action continue. I guess sometimes I feel an opponent who is also somewhat skilled at combat can be just as exciting to the story when it provides a good back and forth fight with the character. Not something I want to always gloss over simply because a roll was close to the AC.
#5 pukunui Mar 03, 2015 13:07:52	This sounds like an application of the "Success at a Cost" option in the DMG. Personally, I think I would prefer being given the choice of either leaving my attack as a miss or turning it into a hit with a complication, rather than having the DM make that decision for me. That being said, I think allowing for a miss to be turned into a hit at the cost of the target getting to retaliate is a fair trade-off in and of itself.
#6 ankiyavon Mar 03, 2015 13:22:54	I would not normally make that ruling, and generally, I would rather not play in a game that made that ruling. However, I would not call a DM wrong for doing it, particularly if this were some kind of special circumstance. If it happened every time you missed, I would be very unhappy as a fighter player. I'd also be a lot more likely to be fine with it if the fighter had gotten a 12 (that is, missed by 1, instead of missed by 2). If, on the other hand, this orc was the same orc who had earlier slaughtered the fighter's family and the fighter was in vengeful rage mode, I would be a lot more satifsfied with it, because that sounds like a special circumstance where you might reasonably be willing to take a hit from him in exchange for a glancing blow. (I still probably wouldn't make the ruling myself unless the fighter had explicitly stated that he wanted to throw defense to the wind and go all-in on him, but if I were the fighter, in that situation, it wouldn't bother me.) In general, both as a player and as a DM, I want players to be able to predict the likely outcomes of their actions before they make their choice. I would not like to be surprised with a counterattack, and as a DM, I would not want to surprise a player with one. Any exception to this general rule needs to be a special circumstance for me. The 'give the player the choice' option is vastly preferable to me, but I still wouldn't do it except in special circumstances.
(Reply to #6) bawylie	ankiyavon wrote:
#8 Vahnyu Mar 03, 2015 13:50:23	What's the source of the Orc's AC? If it's from Armor/Shield, and the attack roll beat the Orc's Dexterity Bonus+10, then I'd allow for some damage to still hit the Orc. If I wanted to allow counterattacking, I'd take a page out of Fire Emblem. Counterattack Whenever you are hit by an attack that requires an attack roll during your opponent's turn, after damage, you can immediately attack them back with either your weapon or a spell you have prepared that requires an attack roll, provided your opponent is within range. You can only choose your opponent as your target. You can only make an attack roll once per attack roll that targets you, up to a maximum of the number of attacks that are available to you(attacks that require a Bonus Action don't count towards this maximum). You can Counterattack a number of opponents per turn equal to your Dex modifier + your Int modifier (minimum 2). By expending your Reaction for this turn, you can double the number of oppoents you can target this turn.
#9 iserith Mar 03, 2015 14:02:16	Who is good at math? (I'm not.) Fighter: 1st-level. Defense or GWF Fighting Style. AC 16 (or 17 with Defense and chainmail). HP 12. Greatsword +5 to hit for 2d6+3 (rerolls 1-2 if GWF). Orc: AC 13. HP 15. Greataxe +5 to hit for 1d12+3 (9 average damage). Is the DM's adjudication (or offer, if it's a choice to make for the player) a good deal for the fighter? Please show your work.
#10 ankiyavon Mar 03, 2015 14:23:53	bawylie wrote:
#11 CCS Mar 03, 2015 14:31:40	I think as the fighter player I'd be excited by this - at first. And then I'd become very very concerned. Because if this is applied to the enemies as well? Then that means I can never BE missed. So given that? I'd rather just have the normal hit/miss rules combined with whatever description applies.
(Reply to #11) bawylie	CCS wrote:
#13 Orethalion Mar 03, 2015 14:55:11	iserith wrote:
#14 Orethalion Mar 03, 2015 14:59:01	bawylie wrote:
#15 BoldItalic Mar 03, 2015 14:59:52	I see your logic, Iserith - success at a cost - but, like Pukunui, I think that if you present it in those terms, then it should be the player's choice to take the risk before making the roll. However, if you simply describe it as a Battle Master Orc that knows the Riposte manoeuvre and chooses to use it on this particular round, then that has the same narrative effect but avoids the debate entirely. A Battle Master Orc is a legitimate monster, and all else follows naturally.
#16 iserith Mar 03, 2015 15:03:02	ankiyavon wrote:
#17 Synjin Mar 03, 2015 15:04:39	pukunui wrote:
#18 ankiyavon Mar 03, 2015 15:09:22	iserith wrote:
#19 Synjin Mar 03, 2015 15:09:23	Additionally, the "Cost" part doesn't necessarily even mean a reaction strike. It could be a hit by the PC, but the "Cost" is that he's off balance for his next round...maybe taking away half or all his Proficiency Bonus for his next attack. The Cost can be any number of things as determined on the fly by the DM depending on the circumstances.
#20 Rhenny Mar 03, 2015 15:21:38	I like the idea of it, and would certainly not be opposed to trying it out. Success at a cost seems very interesting, yet definitely another wrinkle I'd have to learn how to apply more consistently. The biggest concern I have is similar to what Ranthalan said earlier up thread. Part of what I love about 5e is that turn cycles move very quickly. May players would always remark about how quickly their turn came up again. They were pleasantly surprised that they didn't have to wait as long as what they were used to in previous editions. If we implement a counterattack option, that would slow down the turn cycle. I also agree with Pukunui. I'd like the DM to give the player a choice.
#21 pukunui Mar 03, 2015 16:25:19	I've used the "Success at a Cost" rule a few times in my games now. A player rolls and just misses the target number, so I make an offer (eg. "I'll let you succeed but this happens as a result.") and the player chooses to accept or reject it. So far, everyone's loved it. For the record, though, I don't make offers every time a player barely misses. Nor do I allow players to ask for it. The offer has to be initiated by me, as the DM, and it's all about the Rule of Cool. It's also something that I reckon should be used sparingly so it doesn't become commonplace and lose its cool factor.
(Reply to #18) Pompadour64	ankiyavon wrote:
#23 Synjin Mar 03, 2015 17:29:24	pukunui wrote:
#24 pukunui Mar 03, 2015 17:41:31	Synjin wrote:
#25 iserith Mar 03, 2015 17:52:13	ankiyavon wrote:
#26 iserith Mar 03, 2015 18:02:59	Pukunui spotted it from the get-go, but here's the text on page 242 of the DMG: "Failure can be tough, but the agony is compounded when a character fails by the barest margin. When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance. Such complications can run along any of the following lines: A character manages to get her sword past a hobgoblin's defenses and turn a near miss into a hit, but the hobgoblin twists its shield and disarms her. A character narrowly escapes the full brunt of a fireball but ends up prone. A character fails to intimidate a kobold prisoner, but the kobold reveals its secrets anyway while shrieking at the top of its lungs, alerting other nearby monsters. A character manages to finish an arduous climb to the top of a cliff despite slipping, only to realize that the rope on which his companions dangle below him is close to breaking. When you introduce costs such as these, try to make them obstacles and setbacks that change the nature of the adventuring situation. In exchange for success, players must consider new ways of facing the challenge. You can also use this technique when a character succeeds on a roll by hitting the DC exactly, complicating marginal success in interesting ways."
#27 strider13x Mar 03, 2015 18:19:18	I would think the players and DM have discussed "Success at a Cost" during "session 0". Otherwise, as a player I may question what rule was being applied. That being said I ask my players to reserve serious rules questions until after the session just to keep the pace up. As far as feel and consequence, it sounds cool and I wil introduce the idea to my group! (I haven't read all of the "Master of the Rules" section yet...) I see it working well for combat but could see how an inexperienced DM using this method for other ability checks could bend the "cost" too far out of whack thus making it worse than outright failure. Used liberally it could be fun! EDIT: The more I think of it, the Orc only losing a Reaction to gain an extra attack is a lot! Maybe he loses his Bonus Action, or Reaction but Attacks at Disadvantage...
#28 ankiyavon Mar 03, 2015 18:40:30	iserith wrote:
#29 pukunui Mar 03, 2015 18:44:28	strider13x wrote:
#30 Psikerlord Mar 03, 2015 19:34:19	I would not be a fan of such a ruling. It allows the orc to make 2 attacks in a row, and if both hit, the fighter goes down. Normally this could not happen, the fighter would have a round in between to second wind, or dodge, or disengage or get help from allies or whatever. Its not a favourable trade in my book, I would prefer a straight miss and move on as usual. Also, as other posters have indicated, if this rule is applied to monster attacks too, the PCs are going to get hit more, further eroding the value of AC and increasing the importance of HP and burst damage, as fights will finish quicker (undesirable in my view given fights are already quite fast on average). It also has the side effect of making 2H weapons even more damaging than normal, which exacerbates the dmg difference between them and d8 weapons, which is undesirable in my view. On the other hand, as a one off ruling for a special attack in a special situation - cool beans.
#31 kalil Mar 03, 2015 21:46:11	My primary reason to dislike this ruling just that it bogs down the combat too much. It the DM narrating and ruling on every single blow now? Holy crap, I would NOT want to be part of that game. You would be lucky if you got through a single combat in a game night... Let the combat rules do their work and keep the pace up in the adventure instead. Just my 2cp.
(Reply to #25) Pompadour64	iserith wrote:
#33 Devils-Advocate Mar 04, 2015 0:20:37	iserith wrote:
#34 strider13x Mar 04, 2015 3:06:19	Maybe in Combat the "Success at a Cost" could be if you miss by 2 you do damage but the opponent has Advantage to its next Attack. This must be applied to both players and creatures equally and only if the "miss" damage could not possibly defeat the target. Adds a lot to the DMs plate but could be exciting.
#35 iserith Mar 04, 2015 4:48:11	Devils-Advocate wrote:
#36 bawylie Mar 04, 2015 7:41:30	Idk. It seems like what we're actually looking at is a practical implementation of setbacks in a construct of play. Are the trade offs worthwhile? Would this impact speed of play? Does your understanding of target numbers like AC/DC & of the success/failure paradigm affect how you'd rule? The DoaM issue is secondary to that, bc it's a given tha everyone loves it and uses it.
#37 Synjin Mar 04, 2015 8:45:03	Speed of combat isn't something I routinely struggle with. Maybe because I didn't play 4E, I dunno, but seems to me that a little description and flavor in a battle only adds to the fun of the game. You don't need to rattle off 3 pages of discription for each Cost. And I don't necessarily think it has to be a Session-0 thing either. There's going to be many books that come out, where games are well underway. All it takes is the DM to take 5 minutes before the game and say "Hey guys. New book and new variant rule. Here's what it says. What do you guys think?"
#38 ChrisCarlson Mar 04, 2015 9:28:33	I'd imagine that happened to a lot of campaigns as soon as the DMG hit the shelves...
#39 Synjin Mar 04, 2015 10:22:16	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#40 lawrencehoy Mar 04, 2015 10:37:51	bawylie wrote:
(Reply to #35) Pompadour64	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #40) Coredump00	lawrencehoy wrote:
#43 lawrencehoy Mar 04, 2015 12:12:22	Coredump00 wrote:
#44 DemoMonkey Mar 04, 2015 13:44:55	In the example given, the player was not given the choice of "You can turn your miss into a hit, but at the cost of a counterattack from the Orc." So there was no decision by the player to accept a high risk/high reward situation. Therefore it is incumbent on the DM to make sure that the non-voluntary tradeoff was an equitable one. I don't think it was. A fairer trade would be to give the Orc advantage on it's next attack roll, or allow it to do base weapon damage on a miss itself. ... (I'm not sure whose cheek my tongue is in, but I do rather hope it's Adrianne Palicki's.)
(Reply to #41) Pompadour64	Pompadour64 wrote:
#46 iserith Mar 04, 2015 14:18:29	Pompadour64 wrote:
(Reply to #46) Pompadour64	iserith wrote:
#48 iserith Mar 04, 2015 15:45:50	Pompadour64 wrote:
#49 Wuzzard Mar 05, 2015 14:16:59	You're not playing the game to sweat the odds. You're there to win the pie. If you didn't want pie you'd not be out adventuring at all, you'd be home eating gruel. You accept the paradigm that pie eating is what the game is about and what your characters are there to do, regardless of the odds. There's nothing heroic about pulling out the slide rule and abacus, telling the orc, "Just a momemt while I work this out." He's standing in the way of you and your pie!
(Reply to #49) bawylie	Wuzzard wrote:
#51 DemoMonkey Mar 05, 2015 9:10:21	It could be a Math Pie. In which case the best way to kill the Orc and get it would be using the new Math Combat Rules.
#52 ankiyavon Mar 05, 2015 9:34:43	Wuzzard wrote:
#53 Satyrn Mar 05, 2015 10:05:52	Use the Math Combat Rules.
#54 iserith Mar 05, 2015 10:34:34	As this same discussion unfolds on enworld, I can't help but shake the feeling that the basis for the objection to the "Success at a Cost" approach in combat situation boils down to stakes and the tendency to want to draw upon rules as a shield against arguably the most common failure condition in combat - death. Most posters seem to be okay with "Success at a Cost" being offered as a choice that the player can accept or decline. Most also seem to be totally okay with "Success at a Cost" in situations involving exploration or social interaction. But when it comes to combat, "hells nah!" seems to be the most frequent refrain. So I'm wondering if this comes down to stakes. To that end, consider: If the DM is presenting a challenge that largely focuses on exploration and/or social interaction and the cost of failure was death, would you be okay with "Success at a Cost" being employed as a means of adjudication as that scene unfolded? So, either you get the Evil Duke to see your side of things or you die. The shield of combat rules isn't there to protect you. How do you perceive this?
(Reply to #48) Pompadour64	iserith wrote:
#56 DemoMonkey Mar 05, 2015 11:16:18	It doesn't matter whether the stakes are death or being snubbed at the Duke's formal ball. The "Success at a cost" choice should be offered to the player as an option, which they can decline to take if they feel the tradeoff or the stakes are unacceptable. The offer was not made in the original example, it was simply applied. The DM has every right to do this; they just shouldn't.
(Reply to #54) Pompadour64	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #54) Rhenny	iserith wrote:
#59 bawylie Mar 05, 2015 12:15:00	From the basic rules : Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure. 1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location. 2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll. 3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage. If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.
(Reply to #43) Coredump00	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #54) Coredump00	iserith wrote:
#62 strider13x Mar 05, 2015 15:08:44	iserith wrote:
#63 grendel111111 Mar 05, 2015 19:38:08	Related to this how would you rule the following: same situation as above, DM wants to give the same trade off, but the orc is already at 1hp, so any damage the fighter does will kill the orc. Advantage on the next hit won't help the dead orc, a free attack is a worse trade off for the orc as well, because it was getting the next attack in anyway. Sword gets stuck in orcs body is a problem due to some players sulking when they lose weapons (even for the briefest of times). I really do think it should always be an option the PC can choose to take or not if you are going to use it.
#64 ChrisTheS Mar 06, 2015 7:07:09	Orc pulls a Lurtz, grabs the PC's sword with its last dying strength and drags itself further onto it until it gets close enough to try to bite her face off.
#65 kalil Mar 06, 2015 8:21:07	bawylie wrote:
#66 FrogReaver Mar 06, 2015 12:59:28	I feel like doing some math. What do we want calculated and what are the damage and chance to hit numbers I should be using?
#67 iserith Mar 06, 2015 13:06:09	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #71) Pompadour64	FrogReaver wrote:
#83 Tony_Vargas Mar 09, 2015 19:17:29	iserith wrote:
#84 Uchawi Mar 10, 2015 2:44:51	I believe more maneuvers that required saves would make melee alot more interesting versus attacking AC all day. Then you would have trade offs with melee attacks, just like you do with spells. Then you have the framework in place to take it any direction you want and martial characters can develop a toolbox just like spell casters. I dislike the approach of general ad hoc rules for melee, without treating spells in the same fashion. I want the level of abstraction for all character ability to be on a level playing field.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

iserith

Mar 03, 2015 12:02:34

"How to Play" (Basic Rules, page 3) states that the basic conversation of the game goes like this:

1. The DM describes the environment.

2. The players describe what they want to do.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

With that in mind, consider the following interaction.

DM: The orc thumps his greataxe against his hide armor, roaring and shouting curses in the low tongue as he challenges you to fight. What do you do?

Fighter: "I'm going to kill you and take your pie!" I close the distance between the orc and myself, bringing my greatsword down on him!

DM: The orc raises up his greataxe to defend himself, a scowl on his porcine face. Make an attack roll.

Fighter: *rolls* 11.

DM (orc has AC 13): Your sword clashes with the orc's greataxe with a terrible clamor. The force of the blow nearly brings the orc to his knees. Roll just your weapon damage dice - then the orc is going to get a counterattack as a reaction before taking his turn.

What do you think of this DM's ruling? Do the rules support such a ruling? How would you take it if you were playing the fighter? Would you prefer to be given a choice of missing outright or doing damage but opening yourself up to a reaction attack? What if the fighter missed by more than two?

(Feel free to make whatever other assumptions you want about the situation, just make a note of what assumptions you're making to avoid someone hitting you with a "Well, actually...")

Ranthalan

Mar 03, 2015 12:11:59

If I wanted to play a game focused on simulating melee, then I'd like it. If I wanted to play a game focused more on story and pacing, I would prefer the simpler approach.

Rule 0 supports it, but then that supports everything. If I were doing it, I'd be inclined to disregard the weapons damage and just apply the attribute bonus; the weapon was stopped, after all.

bawylie

Mar 03, 2015 12:47:43

For me, I don't mind that ruling. I'd probably go further myself. An option to land an attack on any attack roll greater than 1 if you either lower your defenses (next Attack on you made w/advantage) or permit a counter attack.

I could see fighters, barbarians, & rogues pushing the limits, gambling on defeating a for all the more quickly.

The tension there, and choices available to the players, is something I like in my games.

Istbor

Mar 03, 2015 13:04:31

Since it was a basic attack nothing really fancy or additive than a more flowery "move and swing", I would have had the miss stand, and just describe the parry of the blow with the Orc shoving the blade free of his axe and countering. Kind of like a mini-duel (regardless of who may have been next in order). There has to be some more action desired or something more complicated being attempted by the player than that to fudge the roll.

Example, LMoP. Our fighter destroyed the wooden walkway over the stream in the Goblin cave trying to cause the bugbear bearing down on them to fall to the floor. The Bugbear saved and grabbed onto the far ledge. Our fighter then decided he wanted to make a running leap and attempt to lodge his sword into the exposed back of his enemy. Although at the time he actually failed the roll because he was going that extra mile to try something unique and more heroic than just move and stab (since he knew full well he would stand a fair chance to also fall into the stream below) I let the action continue.

I guess sometimes I feel an opponent who is also somewhat skilled at combat can be just as exciting to the story when it provides a good back and forth fight with the character. Not something I want to always gloss over simply because a roll was close to the AC.

pukunui

Mar 03, 2015 13:07:52

This sounds like an application of the "Success at a Cost" option in the DMG.

Personally, I think I would prefer being given the choice of either leaving my attack as a miss or turning it into a hit with a complication, rather than having the DM make that decision for me.

That being said, I think allowing for a miss to be turned into a hit at the cost of the target getting to retaliate is a fair trade-off in and of itself.

ankiyavon

Mar 03, 2015 13:22:54

I would not normally make that ruling, and generally, I would rather not play in a game that made that ruling.

However, I would not call a DM wrong for doing it, particularly if this were some kind of special circumstance. If it happened every time you missed, I would be very unhappy as a fighter player. I'd also be a lot more likely to be fine with it if the fighter had gotten a 12 (that is, missed by 1, instead of missed by 2).

If, on the other hand, this orc was the same orc who had earlier slaughtered the fighter's family and the fighter was in vengeful rage mode, I would be a lot more satifsfied with it, because that sounds like a special circumstance where you might reasonably be willing to take a hit from him in exchange for a glancing blow. (I still probably wouldn't make the ruling myself unless the fighter had explicitly stated that he wanted to throw defense to the wind and go all-in on him, but if I were the fighter, in that situation, it wouldn't bother me.)

In general, both as a player and as a DM, I want players to be able to predict the likely outcomes of their actions before they make their choice. I would not like to be surprised with a counterattack, and as a DM, I would not want to surprise a player with one. Any exception to this general rule needs to be a special circumstance for me. The 'give the player the choice' option is vastly preferable to me, but I still wouldn't do it except in special circumstances.

(Reply to #6)

bawylie

ankiyavon wrote:

Vahnyu

Mar 03, 2015 13:50:23

What's the source of the Orc's AC? If it's from Armor/Shield, and the attack roll beat the Orc's Dexterity Bonus+10, then I'd allow for some damage to still hit the Orc.

If I wanted to allow counterattacking, I'd take a page out of Fire Emblem.

Counterattack

Whenever you are hit by an attack that requires an attack roll during your opponent's turn, after damage, you can immediately attack them back with either your weapon or a spell you have prepared that requires an attack roll, provided your opponent is within range. You can only choose your opponent as your target. You can only make an attack roll once per attack roll that targets you, up to a maximum of the number of attacks that are available to you(attacks that require a Bonus Action don't count towards this maximum). You can Counterattack a number of opponents per turn equal to your Dex modifier + your Int modifier (minimum 2). By expending your Reaction for this turn, you can double the number of oppoents you can target this turn.

iserith

Mar 03, 2015 14:02:16

Who is good at math? (I'm not.)

Fighter: 1st-level. Defense or GWF Fighting Style. AC 16 (or 17 with Defense and chainmail). HP 12. Greatsword +5 to hit for 2d6+3 (rerolls 1-2 if GWF).

Orc: AC 13. HP 15. Greataxe +5 to hit for 1d12+3 (9 average damage).

Is the DM's adjudication (or offer, if it's a choice to make for the player) a good deal for the fighter? Please show your work.

#10

ankiyavon

Mar 03, 2015 14:23:53

bawylie wrote:

#11

CCS

Mar 03, 2015 14:31:40

I think as the fighter player I'd be excited by this - at first. And then I'd become very very concerned. Because if this is applied to the enemies as well? Then that means I can never BE missed. So given that? I'd rather just have the normal hit/miss rules combined with whatever description applies.

(Reply to #11)

bawylie

CCS wrote:

#13

Orethalion

Mar 03, 2015 14:55:11

iserith wrote:

#14

Orethalion

Mar 03, 2015 14:59:01

bawylie wrote:

#15

BoldItalic

Mar 03, 2015 14:59:52

I see your logic, Iserith - success at a cost - but, like Pukunui, I think that if you present it in those terms, then it should be the player's choice to take the risk before making the roll. However, if you simply describe it as a Battle Master Orc that knows the Riposte manoeuvre and chooses to use it on this particular round, then that has the same narrative effect but avoids the debate entirely. A Battle Master Orc is a legitimate monster, and all else follows naturally.

#16

iserith

Mar 03, 2015 15:03:02

ankiyavon wrote:

#17

Synjin

Mar 03, 2015 15:04:39

pukunui wrote:

#18

ankiyavon

Mar 03, 2015 15:09:22

iserith wrote:

#19

Synjin

Mar 03, 2015 15:09:23

Additionally, the "Cost" part doesn't necessarily even mean a reaction strike. It could be a hit by the PC, but the "Cost" is that he's off balance for his next round...maybe taking away half or all his Proficiency Bonus for his next attack. The Cost can be any number of things as determined on the fly by the DM depending on the circumstances.

#20

Rhenny

Mar 03, 2015 15:21:38

I like the idea of it, and would certainly not be opposed to trying it out. Success at a cost seems very interesting, yet definitely another wrinkle I'd have to learn how to apply more consistently.

The biggest concern I have is similar to what Ranthalan said earlier up thread. Part of what I love about 5e is that turn cycles move very quickly. May players would always remark about how quickly their turn came up again. They were pleasantly surprised that they didn't have to wait as long as what they were used to in previous editions. If we implement a counterattack option, that would slow down the turn cycle.

I also agree with Pukunui. I'd like the DM to give the player a choice.

#21

pukunui

Mar 03, 2015 16:25:19

I've used the "Success at a Cost" rule a few times in my games now. A player rolls and just misses the target number, so I make an offer (eg. "I'll let you succeed but this happens as a result.") and the player chooses to accept or reject it. So far, everyone's loved it. For the record, though, I don't make offers every time a player barely misses. Nor do I allow players to ask for it. The offer has to be initiated by me, as the DM, and it's all about the Rule of Cool. It's also something that I reckon should be used sparingly so it doesn't become commonplace and lose its cool factor.

(Reply to #18)

Pompadour64

ankiyavon wrote:

#23

Synjin

Mar 03, 2015 17:29:24

pukunui wrote:

#24

pukunui

Mar 03, 2015 17:41:31

Synjin wrote:

#25

iserith

Mar 03, 2015 17:52:13

ankiyavon wrote:

#26

iserith

Mar 03, 2015 18:02:59

Pukunui spotted it from the get-go, but here's the text on page 242 of the DMG:

"Failure can be tough, but the agony is compounded when a character fails by the barest margin. When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance. Such complications can run along any of the following lines:

A character manages to get her sword past a hobgoblin's defenses and turn a near miss into a hit, but the hobgoblin twists its shield and disarms her.
A character narrowly escapes the full brunt of a fireball but ends up prone.
A character fails to intimidate a kobold prisoner, but the kobold reveals its secrets anyway while shrieking at the top of its lungs, alerting other nearby monsters.
A character manages to finish an arduous climb to the top of a cliff despite slipping, only to realize that the rope on which his companions dangle below him is close to breaking.

When you introduce costs such as these, try to make them obstacles and setbacks that change the nature of the adventuring situation. In exchange for success, players must consider new ways of facing the challenge.

You can also use this technique when a character succeeds on a roll by hitting the DC exactly, complicating marginal success in interesting ways."

#27

strider13x

Mar 03, 2015 18:19:18

I would think the players and DM have discussed "Success at a Cost" during "session 0". Otherwise, as a player I may question what rule was being applied. That being said I ask my players to reserve serious rules questions until after the session just to keep the pace up.

As far as feel and consequence, it sounds cool and I wil introduce the idea to my group! (I haven't read all of the "Master of the Rules" section yet...) I see it working well for combat but could see how an inexperienced DM using this method for other ability checks could bend the "cost" too far out of whack thus making it worse than outright failure. Used liberally it could be fun!

EDIT: The more I think of it, the Orc only losing a Reaction to gain an extra attack is a lot! Maybe he loses his Bonus Action, or Reaction but Attacks at Disadvantage...

#28

ankiyavon

Mar 03, 2015 18:40:30

iserith wrote:

#29

pukunui

Mar 03, 2015 18:44:28

strider13x wrote:

#30

Psikerlord

Mar 03, 2015 19:34:19

I would not be a fan of such a ruling. It allows the orc to make 2 attacks in a row, and if both hit, the fighter goes down. Normally this could not happen, the fighter would have a round in between to second wind, or dodge, or disengage or get help from allies or whatever. Its not a favourable trade in my book, I would prefer a straight miss and move on as usual.

Also, as other posters have indicated, if this rule is applied to monster attacks too, the PCs are going to get hit more, further eroding the value of AC and increasing the importance of HP and burst damage, as fights will finish quicker (undesirable in my view given fights are already quite fast on average).

It also has the side effect of making 2H weapons even more damaging than normal, which exacerbates the dmg difference between them and d8 weapons, which is undesirable in my view.

On the other hand, as a one off ruling for a special attack in a special situation - cool beans.

#31

kalil

Mar 03, 2015 21:46:11

My primary reason to dislike this ruling just that it bogs down the combat too much. It the DM narrating and ruling on every single blow now? Holy crap, I would NOT want to be part of that game. You would be lucky if you got through a single combat in a game night... Let the combat rules do their work and keep the pace up in the adventure instead. Just my 2cp.

(Reply to #25)

Pompadour64

iserith wrote:

#33

Devils-Advocate

Mar 04, 2015 0:20:37

iserith wrote:

#34

strider13x

Mar 04, 2015 3:06:19

Maybe in Combat the "Success at a Cost" could be if you miss by 2 you do damage but the opponent has Advantage to its next Attack. This must be applied to both players and creatures equally and only if the "miss" damage could not possibly defeat the target. Adds a lot to the DMs plate but could be exciting.

#35

iserith

Mar 04, 2015 4:48:11

Devils-Advocate wrote:

#36

bawylie

Mar 04, 2015 7:41:30

Idk. It seems like what we're actually looking at is a practical implementation of setbacks in a construct of play.

Are the trade offs worthwhile?

Would this impact speed of play?

Does your understanding of target numbers like AC/DC & of the success/failure paradigm affect how you'd rule?

The DoaM issue is secondary to that, bc it's a given tha everyone loves it and uses it.

#37

Synjin

Mar 04, 2015 8:45:03

Speed of combat isn't something I routinely struggle with. Maybe because I didn't play 4E, I dunno, but seems to me that a little description and flavor in a battle only adds to the fun of the game. You don't need to rattle off 3 pages of discription for each Cost.

And I don't necessarily think it has to be a Session-0 thing either. There's going to be many books that come out, where games are well underway. All it takes is the DM to take 5 minutes before the game and say "Hey guys. New book and new variant rule. Here's what it says. What do you guys think?"

#38

ChrisCarlson

Mar 04, 2015 9:28:33

I'd imagine that happened to a lot of campaigns as soon as the DMG hit the shelves...

#39

Synjin

Mar 04, 2015 10:22:16

ChrisCarlson wrote:

#40

lawrencehoy

Mar 04, 2015 10:37:51

bawylie wrote:

(Reply to #35)

Pompadour64

iserith wrote:

(Reply to #40)

Coredump00

lawrencehoy wrote:

#43

lawrencehoy

Mar 04, 2015 12:12:22

Coredump00 wrote:

#44

DemoMonkey

Mar 04, 2015 13:44:55

In the example given, the player was not given the choice of "You can turn your miss into a hit, but at the cost of a counterattack from the Orc." So there was no decision by the player to accept a high risk/high reward situation.

Therefore it is incumbent on the DM to make sure that the non-voluntary tradeoff was an equitable one. I don't think it was.

A fairer trade would be to give the Orc advantage on it's next attack roll, or allow it to do base weapon damage on a miss itself.

...

(I'm not sure whose cheek my tongue is in, but I do rather hope it's Adrianne Palicki's.)

(Reply to #41)

Pompadour64

Pompadour64 wrote:

#46

iserith

Mar 04, 2015 14:18:29

Pompadour64 wrote:

(Reply to #46)

Pompadour64

iserith wrote:

#48

iserith

Mar 04, 2015 15:45:50

Pompadour64 wrote:

#49

Wuzzard

Mar 05, 2015 14:16:59

You're not playing the game to sweat the odds. You're there to win the pie. If you didn't want pie you'd not be out adventuring at all, you'd be home eating gruel. You accept the paradigm that pie eating is what the game is about and what your characters are there to do, regardless of the odds. There's nothing heroic about pulling out the slide rule and abacus, telling the orc, "Just a momemt while I work this out." He's standing in the way of you and your pie!

(Reply to #49)

bawylie

Wuzzard wrote:

#51

DemoMonkey

Mar 05, 2015 9:10:21

It could be a Math Pie.

In which case the best way to kill the Orc and get it would be using the new Math Combat Rules.

#52

ankiyavon

Mar 05, 2015 9:34:43

Wuzzard wrote:

#53

Satyrn

Mar 05, 2015 10:05:52

Use the Math Combat Rules.

#54

iserith

Mar 05, 2015 10:34:34

As this same discussion unfolds on enworld, I can't help but shake the feeling that the basis for the objection to the "Success at a Cost" approach in combat situation boils down to stakes and the tendency to want to draw upon rules as a shield against arguably the most common failure condition in combat - death. Most posters seem to be okay with "Success at a Cost" being offered as a choice that the player can accept or decline. Most also seem to be totally okay with "Success at a Cost" in situations involving exploration or social interaction. But when it comes to combat, "hells nah!" seems to be the most frequent refrain.

So I'm wondering if this comes down to stakes. To that end, consider:

If the DM is presenting a challenge that largely focuses on exploration and/or social interaction and the cost of failure was death, would you be okay with "Success at a Cost" being employed as a means of adjudication as that scene unfolded? So, either you get the Evil Duke to see your side of things or you die. The shield of combat rules isn't there to protect you. How do you perceive this?

(Reply to #48)

Pompadour64

iserith wrote:

#56

DemoMonkey

Mar 05, 2015 11:16:18

It doesn't matter whether the stakes are death or being snubbed at the Duke's formal ball. The "Success at a cost" choice should be offered to the player as an option, which they can decline to take if they feel the tradeoff or the stakes are unacceptable.

The offer was not made in the original example, it was simply applied.

The DM has every right to do this; they just shouldn't.

(Reply to #54)

Pompadour64

iserith wrote:

(Reply to #54)

Rhenny

iserith wrote:

#59

bawylie

Mar 05, 2015 12:15:00

From the basic rules :

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

(Reply to #43)

Coredump00

lawrencehoy wrote:

(Reply to #54)

Coredump00

iserith wrote:

#62

strider13x

Mar 05, 2015 15:08:44

iserith wrote:

#63

grendel111111

Mar 05, 2015 19:38:08

Related to this how would you rule the following: same situation as above, DM wants to give the same trade off, but the orc is already at 1hp, so any damage the fighter does will kill the orc. Advantage on the next hit won't help the dead orc, a free attack is a worse trade off for the orc as well, because it was getting the next attack in anyway. Sword gets stuck in orcs body is a problem due to some players sulking when they lose weapons (even for the briefest of times). I really do think it should always be an option the PC can choose to take or not if you are going to use it.

#64

ChrisTheS

Mar 06, 2015 7:07:09

Orc pulls a Lurtz, grabs the PC's sword with its last dying strength and drags itself further onto it until it gets close enough to try to bite her face off.

#65

kalil

Mar 06, 2015 8:21:07

bawylie wrote:

#66

FrogReaver

Mar 06, 2015 12:59:28

I feel like doing some math. What do we want calculated and what are the damage and chance to hit numbers I should be using?

#67

iserith

Mar 06, 2015 13:06:09

FrogReaver wrote:

(Reply to #71)

Pompadour64

FrogReaver wrote:

#83

Tony_Vargas

Mar 09, 2015 19:17:29

iserith wrote:

#84

Uchawi

Mar 10, 2015 2:44:51

I believe more maneuvers that required saves would make melee alot more interesting versus attacking AC all day. Then you would have trade offs with melee attacks, just like you do with spells. Then you have the framework in place to take it any direction you want and martial characters can develop a toolbox just like spell casters. I dislike the approach of general ad hoc rules for melee, without treating spells in the same fashion. I want the level of abstraction for all character ability to be on a level playing field.