| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1HebitsuikazaOct 14, 2014 5:26:03 | I have already begun to notice that the combat options in this version of D&D are a bit too sparse. In many ways, it feels very ascribed to what one can do. It strikes me there are several things one should be able to do and the rules by default just do not allow them to do. I am sure there are others who have noticed some of these things too.
So far some of the things that there are no real rules for.
1) Slamming someone into a stone wall with your body- Is this an improvised attack action that deals d4 damage? It is a shove? A grapple? Is it both in the same action and if so is that even a character who doesn't have two attacks can even do? 3) Going on the defensive - This one seems a pretty major oversight. I see nothing in the book at all regarding "forget trying to hurt the enemies, I am just going to hide behind my shield or watch where those arrows are flying and focus on getting out of the way."
Well, those are the things I have wanted to have my character do so far only to be told there are no rules covering that. At least the "throw a small enemy at another enemy" seems to have been covered.
|
| #2AaronOfBarbariaOct 14, 2014 5:31:30 | 1) It is as worked out with the DM in the circumstances actually happening, rather than trying to create a universal ruling about trying to move one body into another body/object for the purpose of damage.
2) The word "grapple" as applies to D&D does not actually mean the same thing as "grapple" as applies to real life fighting - but there is a feat, some monster special attacks, and the world of possibilities that is improvised actions worked out with the DM that can start to represent that real life fighting element.
3) Dodge is absolutely an action. |
| #3KravellOct 14, 2014 5:40:42 | For anything not there make an ability check:
Improvising an Action
In addition: For 1) you seem to have a good idea. Shove for 1d4 damage plus Strength bonus. For 2) if your DM agree you might be able to move a grappled creature to restrained with an opposed Strength check. I would say that the creature escapes if it wins or turns the grapple on you. Otherwise, if you win the creature goes to restrained and can make a Strength check to go back to grappled and then try again to get free (or just attack with disadvantage). For 3) you have Dodge.
Basically, opposed rolls and improvised damage cover a lot of ground. |
| #4iserithOct 14, 2014 6:19:43 |
|
| #5Moirdryd2Oct 14, 2014 6:40:05 | Don't always agree with the man but on this occasion.... Loving your work Iserith |
| #6TimboramaOct 14, 2014 7:39:38 | This isn't 3.x. You don't need to have something spelled out for you to even attempt it. I liked how there was a rule for everything, but it did make things tedious.
As a PC, you can always try something (or, at least, ask your DM). But as a DM, you can use the base set of rules to see what makes sense. Because context is key, and the rules can only give you so muhc (what if the person slamming the other in the wall has spiked armor? What if the wall is on fire? What if the wall is really a Phamtasmal Force?).
So the rules give you a great set up to rule on these individual cases without you having to open the book to the section labeled "Combat: Actions- Special actions c.) Actions involving a Wall ii.) Slamming an opponent into a wall (see section c) in a burning building atop a Lich's Tower"
(also, it should be noted, OP, some of these ARE CLEARLY defined in the rules. Maybe you need to give the combat rules another once-over? Or wait for the DMG before you try reaching too far?) |
| #7iserithOct 14, 2014 7:44:14 |
|
| #8MistwellOct 14, 2014 7:53:24 |
|
| #9FFSAAOct 14, 2014 7:57:23 |
|
| #10XguildOct 14, 2014 9:55:30 | Its the classic dilema of rules in role-playing games. The more you have, the less flexible the system is and the more situations you end up with where unbalances of the rules can be exposed or rules simply not applying in a logic way to every situation which pushes people to create new rules to fix the old rules ultimatly leading you right back to where you started which is, creating rules that make sense to you,at your table, for your players. 5e simply evolved to accept this infinite loop by creating simple applicable mechanics that work with every situation. You can't create a situation no matter how bizzare to which I can't apply 5e rules, its basically impossible.. The reason is that its an abstracted system so an Acrobatics check, Dexterity Check and Inteleligence check could conceivably be made to accomplish the exact same action. Which you use is basically a judgement based on whatever logic you use to justify it between you and your players.
To some degree this has always been true about every edition of D&D, though in editions like 3rd and 4th you had heavy handed rules in one arena (combat) which made it difficult and time consuming to run that part of the game. 5e flows basically at the same speed wether your fighting goblins or trying to figuire out what those dwarven runes mean.
They could have gotten more specific with the rules, but frankly if they had there would have been no reason to create 5e... In a sense we already have rules heavy games like 3e and 4e in the franchise and they have proven to be a chore, it would have made no sense to make 5e yet another heavy rule system to learn. |
| #11dmgorgonOct 14, 2014 10:39:39 | I totally agree.
The mechanics for basic combat actions should be the same at every table. Sadly, the designers decided to remove them and create contrived class features and feats out of them. I don't know why they did this, but apparently melee characters had to be nerfed.
If I end up running a 5e game, I'll be using the rules for Disarm, Trip, Pin, Push/Pull, Charge, Overbearing, Parry, Called Shots, etc.. from 2e. Like 2e, you'll be able to perform one of those actions for each attack you have. |
| #12autolycusOct 14, 2014 10:54:19 | The mechanics for the game are the same everywhere:
Every table should be playing by these rules. |
| #13iserithOct 14, 2014 11:41:57 |
|
| #14DraconesOct 14, 2014 11:53:23 | There are two main ways to design a rpg. You can write up rules for everything and everyone at every table plays with those rules. This has the benefit of consistency across tables and gives GMs a clear guideline for how to rule on situations like casting a fireball in outer space.
Or you can design the rpg where you have general mechanics for handling all these situations loosely and leave it up to the GM on how to use those mechanics in various situations. This has the benefit of creating a more flowing game(less rules lookup) and for most gaming tables it really doesn't matter at the end of a campaign if casting fireballs in space is done at a -1 or -3. What matters was that everyone had fun and got to do cool things.
5e has switched to the latter method. It's not "better or worse" so much as a specific playstyle. Some people will love it, others will hate it. I love it mostly because I can never remember a lot of rules so I like a system that promotes making things up on the spot. |
| #15lawrencehoyOct 14, 2014 12:45:39 | I agree with most everyone that has already posted: all of these situations are already covered by at least one 5th Edition rule (sometimes thay could be adjudicated through a choice of rules, depending on the specifics of the situation.
I think this is a good thing; it doesn't limit the DM into a strict rule interpretation that may not be beneficial to the PC/player. It also eliminates a lot of house-ruling that may be necessary for the DM to ensure his campaign world works the way he envisions it (because an overly specific rule flies in the face of his vision). |
| #16SaelornOct 14, 2014 12:54:05 |
|
| #17setiOct 14, 2014 12:58:21 | Everyone should be able to try things, it's just martial types should be better at, well, martial, combat. Anyone can try to disarm, for example. A wizard could try to disarm a dude with Mage Hand. It'd have a low change of success, however.
I'm not worried about 5e's rules for trying stuff. (Nor was I worried about 4e, as I didn't beleive that just because you didn't have a 'push' or 'trip' power you couldn't push or trip someone. The AEDU power to push, knock prone, etc. just guarenteed success if the attack roll succeeded.)
The only thing I'm worried about is non-caster once-per short or long rest abilities (Encounter and Daily 'powers') and non-magic utility. I want more of them. Not tons more, but enough to make it possible for a fighter-type to do a few AoEs, impose conditions, do some DoaM, and roll a bucket of damage dice at high levels too. You know, like casters get to do all the time.
I worry about that much more than I worry about the idea of 'can I push a guy?' |
| #18HitdiceOct 14, 2014 12:59:48 | Having thought it over, I think 5e really shines with a reactive DM, like a lot of the OSR games out there. That is, speaking of my 5e DM experience thus far, I haven't run into a situation yet that coudn't be decided by a simple ability contest if nothing else. I think 5e as a system cuts down on the DM side option paralysis, which is a good thing for all concerned, DM and PC alike. |
| #19spelleyOct 14, 2014 13:08:07 | Player Request: I want to sweep my blade across a group of Goblins in front of me with a wide arcing blade swing. DM: Okay, I'll let you regularly hit a number of them equal to your normal number of attacks and impose Disadvantage on any more than that. The bad guys will also have Advantage against you until your next turn unless you pass a DC 10+number of targets Dex saving throw since you'll be off balance. Sound fair? I'll also add a new Feat to let you do the sweeping attack without any penalties as an option. |
| #20XguildOct 14, 2014 13:09:19 |
|
| (Reply to #19)seti |
|
| #22UchawiOct 14, 2014 13:35:34 | It just depends on what you want out of a RPG. I prefer more detail and a little more flexibility for martial classes like having maneuvers. But 5E is fairly basic, so alot is placed in the DMs hands to decide. The hard part is keeping it consistent for a more abstract game. Whatever you decide for basic actions, start keeping track of it. |
| #23XguildOct 14, 2014 14:32:36 |
|
| (Reply to #21)spelley |
|
| #25NoonOct 14, 2014 16:27:35 | I don't get this sort of thread - isn't it obvious that even if you get rules for the actions you want, there are thousands of people out there with thousands of actions you didn't think of, who wont get rules?
But it always seems to come down to 'but my moves are the special ones that should be covered! Never mind all those other people!'
You could have rules by which you could build moves, with point buy. But even these don't cover everything. |
| #26FFSAAOct 14, 2014 16:37:47 |
|
| (Reply to #12)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #24)seti |
|
| (Reply to #4)Rhenny |
|
| #30spelleyOct 14, 2014 17:23:57 |
|
| (Reply to #24)vssg |
|
| (Reply to #26)vssg |
|
| #33BlackbriarOct 14, 2014 17:48:18 | There's a whole lot of design space in "Make an ability check (relevant skill)" and "Advantage / Disadvantage". Body checking someone into a wall? But what’s the actual effect of this action? Damage? That’s an improvised attack. Want to knock them off balance? Opposed Strength rolls. Loser has disadvantage for any action they take the next round.
There's also a lot to be said for disconnecting the in-game fiction with the game mechanics. Sweep your sword across the group of goblins to push them back? That sounds like Disengage. Only you’re reversing who moves. Just say you sweep your sword and beat a hasty retreat, or just move a few steps across the room for better positioning.
There are at least two distinct minigames in D&D, one is combat, another is roleplaying. You can roleplay your combat, granted, but it’s typically a bad idea to make decisions in character unless your character would also think as tactically as you as the player would. There’s too much at stake to not think tactically, and too many years of playing tactically for some players to be able to change that mode of play. |
| #34dmgorgonOct 14, 2014 17:52:38 |
|
| #35iserithOct 14, 2014 18:32:19 |
|
| #36DraconesOct 14, 2014 18:35:27 |
|
| #37iserithOct 14, 2014 18:51:19 |
|
| #38dmgorgonOct 14, 2014 19:10:42 |
|
| #39iserithOct 14, 2014 19:14:42 |
|
| #40FFSAAOct 14, 2014 19:19:34 |
|
| (Reply to #38)vssg |
|
| #42FFSAAOct 14, 2014 19:34:07 |
|
| #43iserithOct 14, 2014 19:40:52 |
|
| #44PsikerlordOct 14, 2014 19:43:12 |
|
| (Reply to #40)vssg |
|
| #46iserithOct 14, 2014 19:51:57 |
|
| #47dmgorgonOct 14, 2014 19:49:35 |
|
| #48PsikerlordOct 14, 2014 19:50:58 |
|
| #49PsikerlordOct 14, 2014 20:02:50 |
|
| #50kalilOct 14, 2014 20:14:46 |
|
| (Reply to #49)vssg |
|
| #52LawolfOct 14, 2014 20:57:06 | Here is how I like to do improvised actions in 5e.
If the action is something the battlemaster already does, you can usually improvise it. When you improvise it, you do not get to add your proficiency to the save DC (you are effectively untrained), and you treat all Superiority Dice as 0. Additionally, your improvised action replaces one of your attacks, instead of being in addition to an attack.
Here is an example of an improvised disarm attempt. A cleric attempts to disarm an Ogre by taking the Attack action and replacing his attack with an improvised action. The Ogre target must make a Strength save (DC 8 + the cleric's Strength mod). On a failed save, the ogre's weapon falls to the ground.
Now, is this stepping on the Battlemaster fighter's toes? Not really. The battlemaster fighter who uses the disarm maneuver is more likely to succeed because he applies his proficiency bonus to the save DC. The battlemaster fighter also gets to disarm while simultaneously dealing damage from his weapon and adding additional damage from his superiority die. The fighter is clearly superior at disarming foes, even though anyone can attempt to disarm someone if they wish to. |
| #53strider13xOct 14, 2014 20:51:02 | Another approach is simply HP loss. So you attempt to Disarm the Goblin. Roll to hit, roll damage as usual. Then describe how successful the action is by the HP remaining. You miss and the Disarm fails. You do less than 1/3 HP then the Goblin fumbles his weapon but it remains in its hands. Over 2/3 damage then the Goblin drops the weapon. If the Goblin chooses to Attack the next round then include the last action in the narration! For example the Goblin Attacks and missed then they scramble for the weapon but are unable to pick it back up. If it Attacks and hits then it somehow grabs the weapon (or maybe another weapon) and strikes! Most likely if the Goblin has lost 2/3 HP it will Disengage... And if you drop them to 0 you have the player describe the Goblins action. They may slice its head off or it may cower in fear, not moving or acting until after the fight.
And as to a sweep of 3 Goblins maybe one attack roll but distribute the HP damage amoung the Goblins. Apply Disadvantage or perhaps Resistance to the damage.
I like using Ability Checks too, but HP can do the trick if you are trying to keep the pace up in combat. |
| #54ShasarakOct 14, 2014 20:53:56 |
|
| #55kalilOct 14, 2014 21:16:20 |
|
| #56LawolfOct 14, 2014 21:23:37 |
|
| #57lawrencehoyOct 14, 2014 22:57:48 |
|
| #58PsikerlordOct 15, 2014 0:37:58 |
|
| #59MykeSchultzOct 15, 2014 1:08:32 | Expanded rules for improvised attacks and such might very well be in the Dm's Guide. They mentioned more tactical options for combat. |
| #60lawrencehoyOct 15, 2014 1:14:52 |
|
| #61strider13xOct 15, 2014 3:37:57 | If the DMG could show multiple examples of something like Disarm depending on situation (STR based, DEX based, CHA based) then that would work! By putting something as situational as an improvised Disarm in the PHB would take away from the DMs ability to narrate which Ability Check is called for (or using my previous example the option to use HP). Players that have specific options (Battlemaster, Spellcasters) know how their powers work, but to specifically define an improvised action doesn't make it improvised, does it... |
| #62FFSAAOct 15, 2014 5:41:50 |
|
| #63BoldItalicOct 15, 2014 7:20:48 |
|
| #64XguildOct 15, 2014 8:23:27 | [quote="dmgorgon"]
No they are not. It doesn't sound like you even know how any of those combat options worked in 2e.
[/quote ]
They are, its just that they are not done is a rule specific way but rather covered by the general workings of the mechanics, in the same way for example blocking with your shield is not a specifc mechanic, but rather a feature of your AC. Everything you asking about is resolvable in a logical way in 5e.
|
| #65Slyck314Oct 15, 2014 8:31:18 | Alchemist fire lets anyone throw a Firebolt. Healers Kits allow characters to replicate Spare the Dying. I could allow combination of Nature, Alchemy Kit and Medicine to allow someone to make and use poultices and potions that can perform in the realm of many healing and restoration spells. |
| #66EMROct 15, 2014 8:48:10 | For me I dislike begging the DM to do things. I have had some crappy DMs in my time and I resent having my character agency dependant upon his whim. I don't go to D&D to play mother may I, I want to be able to plan around what my character can do and begging for DM treats doesn't let me do that.
For example:
I rush the 4 Hobgoblins, swinging my hammer in a wide arch with a reckless yell, throwing caution to the wind, to strike them with enough force that I leave them paralysed. I'm attacking Recklessly because I want this to hit so advantage on all my attacks.
So DMs what's your response to me wanting to have my fighter cause the Paralysed condition on a gang of hobos?
So instead I'm going to play a cleric and cast Hold Person against their weak Will save (example, I don't actually know if hobos have a weak will save) because it lets me know that yes, indeed I can paralyse 4 people, and that then can be the keystone of my round's strategy. |
| #67iserithOct 15, 2014 9:08:40 |
|
| #68strider13xOct 15, 2014 9:18:54 | FFSAA-
Fireball does not fall under Ability Check because it is outside the realm of normal possibility while taking something out of ones hands is normally possible. Things like Reckless Attack are class specific, if a Fighter were to be Reckless then there is no bonus or penalty granted, its just a description of the action. Sneak Attack? Well, spending an Action to Hide would grant Advantage, but no additional damage. Allowing the player to narrate an Action doesn't mean the DM must grant a bonus or penalty, but the Ad/Disad mechanic allows the DM some freedom if the players narration merits it.
The point I think FFSAA is making is even application of rulings, which while desirable is not practical in TTRPGs. Each situation is different and the DM needs to have the leeway to make a call.
Example. Ever grabbed a snake in the woods before? One might argue that is a DEX check, right? I've watched my brother pick up snakes and he distracts them by wiggling his foot, thus drawing attention away from his hand moving behind the snakes head. This could be a CHA (persude) or even WIS (animal handling). Allow the DM to make the call depending on the situation as described by the player. |
| #69XguildOct 15, 2014 9:27:28 |
|
| #70XguildOct 15, 2014 9:35:43 |
|
| #71BecDeCorbinOct 15, 2014 9:50:59 | I'm hoping that the DMG has a nice discussion of how to adjudicate these sorts of actions in play, with relevant examples and workable benchmarks for damage, DCs, and status effects. Ideally it would include practical advice on how to avoid making such maneuvers too effective or too weak in comparison to normal character abilities. Sure, experienced DMs can come up with decent ad hoc solutions (ala iserith and Lawolf), but some pointers are always helpful.
I hated 3.X combat maneuvers that were too specific and required too much investment to be practical. 4Es attack powers were even more specific. I prefer building useful alternatives to straight attack damage into the system itself or giving the DM tools to help adjudicate such actions rather than putting the emphasis on PC builds. In the fluidity and chaos of combat, maybe the wizard is the only one in position to attempt to disarm the evil warlord or the halfling bard wants to trip the ogre so he can run away from it. Empowering all characters to have options, even low-chance ones, deepens the complexity and enjoyment of play.
I also don't agree with the argument that using battlemaster maneuvers as a template for generic combat actions disenfranchises the battlemaster. In actuality, the battlemaster could now attempt improvised maneuvers like any other character (probably with more advantageous stats at that) rather than strictly relying on maneuver dice. I'd even let them add their proficiency bonus to the save if they know the maneuver. Sounds like a win-win to me.
|
| #72strider13xOct 15, 2014 10:27:42 | EMR-
Your Hobgoblin example would require an Attack roll, and if you did enough damage to drop the Hobb to 0 HP you get the desired effect. If you don't then the DM can determine the creatures next Action. Now, if the DM is RPing the Hobb and the Hobb is cowardly it may hobble away (Disengage), or if it loyal till death it fights thru the pain! All in the narration...
Sorry your past DMs sucked but that's not the systems fault. |
| #73EMROct 15, 2014 10:48:34 | And that proves my point. One DM decides that trading damage for the effect is fair while another decides that the only way I can paralyse people is by actually outright killing them (0 HP).
Not only that, but unless I'm meticulously taking notes on the adjudications the next session I try something similar I have no idea if this time I'll be able to do it.
And in my description if I don't describe what I'm trying to do how is the DM supposed to know that I want to paralyse the hobgoblins? How else can I say I intend to inflict this defined game status condition for tactical impact if the DM isn't informed that I'm trying to do that.
Humorously enough for everyone that dislikes 4e's power system is that 4e had the best support for exactly what this thread is talking about with pg 42. in the DMG. A table of improvised actions with appropriate damage ranges and tiered difficulty based on how powerful / limited the conditions were. My hobgoblin example could in 4e be a Hard DC check with low damage due to the AOE and Paralyse condition. At least there was some frame of reference for the players to build from other than hope.
|
| #74iserithOct 15, 2014 10:50:44 |
|
| #75EMROct 15, 2014 10:54:23 |
|
| #76DraconesOct 15, 2014 11:11:52 |
|
| #77XguildOct 15, 2014 11:29:24 |
|
| #78EMROct 15, 2014 11:55:31 |
|
| #79XguildOct 15, 2014 12:31:00 | |
| #80LawolfOct 15, 2014 13:09:18 |
|
| (Reply to #73)Rhenny |
|
| #82FFSAAOct 15, 2014 22:09:44 |
|
| #83AaronOfBarbariaOct 15, 2014 22:18:07 | Be careful with all those fireballs near your strawman FFSAA, you might start a fire. |
| (Reply to #23)Uchawi |
|
| (Reply to #84)vssg |
|
| #86XguildOct 16, 2014 9:45:11 |
|
| #87DraconesOct 16, 2014 9:56:06 |
|
| #88XguildOct 16, 2014 10:55:42 |
|
| #89RastapopoulosOct 16, 2014 17:31:24 |
|
| #90sleypyOct 16, 2014 18:04:38 |
|
| (Reply to #43)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #66)arnwolf666 |
|
| #124spelleyOct 18, 2014 6:19:49 | Anyone can "cast" fireball in my game... as long as they have a cask of gunpowder/flammable explosives and a source of fire. |
| #125billeOct 18, 2014 6:37:06 | It's funny, I often light-heartedly moan at my players for not knowing enough about the rules about the game they have been playing for so many years, but actually I'm so glad they're not obsessed with gaining rules advantage with their characters or who moan that their class can do more stuff than another. I don't think I would be a good DM for that sort of group. I have several players who wouldn't dream of playing anything other than a fighter because they would sacrifice all class advantages just to be able to charge in and chop away with a ruddy great sword and shout a lot! Whereas I also have a player who absolutely loves the wizard, not because of the power the class has, but because he just adores the complexity and the imagery of the spells and thinking he can get one over on the opposition. In fact all my players are loving 5th much more than 4th (and they loved 4th) because there is so much more room for story and improvisation. And as a DM I actually found the character balancing drive in 4th to end up being quite boring. However, I can see that this more freeform approach doesn't sit so well with other types of players and I certainly don't denigrate that approach - it is just as valid - I just hope 5th doesn't go down that route too much with an overabundance of option and splat books which create a very specific action set for each class and will just end up in the mire of bloat that I hated about 3.5/Pathfinder. Yes, improvisation is key to all rpgs - it's just that 5th makes no apologies for it - and I love that. I really hope this gets underlined in the DMG. |
| #126iserithOct 18, 2014 6:37:26 |
|
| #127iserithOct 18, 2014 6:41:16 |
|
| #128abs1nthOct 18, 2014 7:59:10 |
|
| #129MistwellOct 18, 2014 8:26:52 |
|
| #130OrethalionOct 18, 2014 8:29:49 |
|
| #131iserithOct 18, 2014 8:31:23 |
|
| (Reply to #121)Rhenny |
|
| #133ChrisCarlsonOct 18, 2014 8:42:03 |
|
| #134sleypyOct 18, 2014 8:45:10 |
|
| #162sleypyOct 19, 2014 7:15:45 |
|
| #202NoonOct 21, 2014 16:19:12 |
|
| #203KalaniOct 21, 2014 20:56:51 | While I agree that it is ultimately the GMs choice, I want to put forth the following question.
The reason I wrote "your" in italics, is because ultimately this is a matter of subjective opinion, and therefore other peoples opinions and game experiences mean very little (including my own). If allowing it causes little to no actual harm, my secondary question is:
These questions are not meant to be confrontational, but rather to illicit self-reflection on your respective parts. You need not even answer the questions here, but I strongly encourage you to answer them (at least to yourself), as doing so may grant you some insight into your motivations that you may not be aware of.
More than likely, your answers will boil down to Fear of losing control and being taken advantage of. Knowing how this fear is affecting your game can go a long way in developing strategies to overcome said fear, leading to better DMing as a result.
Self-reflection is always a good thing, especially when granted a position of power and responsibility, as it helps keep us balanced.
Caveat: If anyone shares their answers to these questions here, please be respectful of their answers as being their personal "truth" and feelings. Do not objectify their answers, or tell them they're wrong.... It is impossible to be wrong about one's feelings or opinions, only the facts they are based upon. |
| #204lawrencehoyOct 21, 2014 21:32:58 |
|
| #205NoonOct 22, 2014 0:57:00 |
|
| (Reply to #204)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #207lawrencehoyOct 22, 2014 3:46:20 |
|
| #208iserithOct 22, 2014 6:22:49 |
|
| #209iserithOct 22, 2014 6:25:05 |
|
| #210OrethalionOct 22, 2014 6:41:18 |
|
| (Reply to #209)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| (Reply to #203)Timborama |
|
| (Reply to #211)Timborama |
|
| #214VoltaicLimeOct 22, 2014 8:30:00 |
|
| #215iserithOct 22, 2014 8:34:32 |
|
| #216VoltaicLimeOct 22, 2014 8:44:00 | It's not a slippery slope. I've seen things like that happen in campaigns I played in. The DM allowed a particularly expoitable tactic to work once and the other players started finding new ways to employ that tactic whenever they could. It ruined the game for me as a player. The DM was too wishy washy to put his foot down and stop it. So he tried to work around it by making encounters designed to stop that tactic. Players have a responsibility to cooperate with the DM to ensure the game is fun for everyone and not just themselves.
Edited by Orc_Barrons: Inappropriate Content violates the Code of Conduct: http://company.wizards.com/conduct' |
| #217iserithOct 22, 2014 8:50:25 |
|
| #218KalaniOct 22, 2014 9:02:59 |
|
| #219OrethalionOct 22, 2014 8:56:56 |
|
| #220VoltaicLimeOct 22, 2014 8:59:53 |
|
| #221iserithOct 22, 2014 9:01:39 |
|
| #222VoltaicLimeOct 22, 2014 9:05:27 |
|
| #223kalilOct 22, 2014 9:05:41 |
|
| #224iserithOct 22, 2014 9:11:01 |
|
| #225KalaniOct 22, 2014 9:23:52 | In respect to PCs abusing a ruling Don't be afraid to make mistakes, and don't be afraid to admit them (and correct them) when you do. If you find that a previous ruling is too lenient/abusive, or too restrictive - calmly and politely explain the issue to your players, and tell them you will be replacing the previous ruling with a new one that is more/less restrictive. Don't pretend to be infallible. Most players are more than willing to accept you made an error in judgement and are correcting a ruling for the sake of game balance.
When you tell your players, let them know that the new ruling is only an interim ruling - and that it too will be adjusted if necessary, if it is found to have upset the game balance in the other direction. Once the new ruling is made, be consistent with it and monitor it for balance.
Any DM who doesn't monitor their rulings for unexpected issues - is failing to do their job as a DM.
Seriously. I have met too many DMs afraid to make mistakes, especially those that may grant the PCs too much power. Every single edition has granted DMs guidelines on how to correct game imbalances. Usually, such guidelines deal with magic items specifically - but the same advice works equally in respect to poor judgement calls and rulings.... Fix the issue (in one of a dozen different ways), and continue on.
Only a jerk-player would have an issue with correcting a game imbalance caused by a ruling. At which point, the onus falls on the jerk-player to correct their behavior. |
| #226ChrisCarlsonOct 22, 2014 9:12:05 |
|
| #227kalilOct 22, 2014 9:19:31 |
|
| #228OrethalionOct 22, 2014 9:19:37 |
|
| #229kalilOct 22, 2014 9:22:31 |
|
| #230ChrisCarlsonOct 22, 2014 9:25:00 |
|
| (Reply to #222)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #232KalaniOct 22, 2014 9:37:38 | FYI - I am running AL weekly at my local FLGS (one of 6 DMs). Organized play is far less forgiving than home play, and despite this - I am having a blast making rulings on the fly..... I find the 5e ruleset freeing, and allows me to make judgement calls appropriate for the situation - and also allows me to make rulings for every hair-brained, off-the-wall idea the PCs come up with.
Earlier rulesets (3.5 and 4e specifically) were so rigid and inflexible that it often tied the DMs hands - preventing them from making an appropriate ruling without resorting to house rules.... This however, was a major issue when running sanctioned RPGA events - as house-rules were prohibited at such events. As a result, abusive mechanics and rules oversights were something that Organized Play DMs were forced to accept - and adapt to (sometimes with disasterous results).
Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed 3.5 (it was my favorite edition until 5e) - however, trying to memorize enough of the various rules in order to run a session without tripping up on one obscure rule or another was a nightmare.... to the point that I burnt out as a DM and refused to run games for over 3 years as a result.
This is my first DMing experience in 3 years and I am having a blast.
Rulings are simple and intuitive, and can be made on the fly - and the ruleset itself is so simple and intuitive - it can be memorized with little effort (individual spells or class abilities however, may need to be looked up - but the rules as a whole, are easily remembered). I absolutely hate having to look up rules. It slows down gameplay, disrupts the flow and atmosphere of the game, and ultimately detracts from the games enjoyment.
The rules should run elegantly in the background, with the focus being on the action.... 5e accomplishes this task much better than I expected it to - even better than it did during early playtests. |
| #233sleypyOct 22, 2014 10:37:36 |
|
| #242NoonOct 22, 2014 17:16:25 |
|
| #243lawrencehoyOct 22, 2014 21:24:21 |
|
| #244AaronOfBarbariaOct 23, 2014 0:41:13 | Lawrence, you are confused. I am not a DM that plays with the "yes, and..." method. I am just a DM that has a much less stuffy and restrictive opinion as to what is reasonable than yours. |
| #245lawrencehoyOct 23, 2014 3:01:14 |
|
| (Reply to #245)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #247edwin_suOct 23, 2014 4:19:51 |
|
| (Reply to #244)grendel111111 |
|
| #249lawrencehoyOct 24, 2014 1:59:37 |
|
| #250AaronOfBarbariaOct 24, 2014 3:07:01 | Lawrence, perhaps I do have the wrong impression of your DMing style, but you haven't done anything at all to clarify the situation so that I might see what you did in a different light - but you have continued to insist that I am wrong, and continued to use language in your posts which constitute warning flags of a power-tripping DM because they are the same phrasings used and thoughts expressed by the power-tripping DMs that I have personally experienced.
Since this whole side conversation has grown increasingly off-topic, I'd have to suggest that if you really do care that I have the right impression of your DM style - rather than just responding to me as much as you have because you are trying to win a non-existent argument - that you PM a detailed run-down of both the scene in which your players met, but were not allowed to defeat, their enemy and the later scene in which they again met the enemy but were allowed to have the chance of defeating it.
Because as-is, you saying things like "The actions disallowed were not requested as something the players necessarily wanted; only a question of possibilities," leaves me hearing nothing but you saying that your players don't know what they want, or that your players are unlike my experience of all the gamers I have ever met in that they actually do ask if things are possible for some reason besides that they want to do that thing which they are asking about. |
| #251lawrencehoyOct 27, 2014 1:39:13 |
|