Save or suck Medusa petrification

CM said:

Except 4e didn't do this.

Click to expand...

To clarify: I wasn't saying that 4E did. I was just commenting on the wider meme.

Hussar said:

Not really though. If you step away from D&D's incessant need to have a rule for everything and look at other systems you can see that you can have broad rules that cover large amounts of actions. You can do all sorts of cool things without the DM having to ad hoc new rules every time.

Click to expand...

Good rules support rulings. I agree with pretty much everything you said 100%.

LostSoul said:

If the DM's judgement call is based on how esoteric the knowledge is - so he can point to a DC - the DM is making a setting-design decision. I don't think it's mother-may-I because his decision isn't related to the player's statement (except that the player's statement has forced him to make that call).

Click to expand...

LostSoul said:

I'm not sure I would like a standard 3E/4E "monster lore" check; I'd rather they used the AD&D stat (frequency?). There isn't anything information in the Bestiary to aid the DM in making that call.

Click to expand...

"Mother may I?" is probably a bit of a rough-and-ready, flexible notion.

For me, the game veers into "Mother may I?" territory when the player has little or no information with which to frame his/her choices, and little or no resources to draw on, in respect of action resolution.

So if the GM is at large to set the DC, and the player can't learn what that DC is, or shape it, I start to get a "Mother may I?" vibe. It doesn't alleviate that vibe that the GM is not playing favourites, but is rather trying to be faithful to the game and setting. Because the GM's sense of faithfulness isn't something that the player has control over.

The opposite extreme from "Mother may I?" would be HeroQuest revised or 4e-style DC-setting - based on a pass/fail cycle in the first case, on level in the second case.

In the middle would be the rules providing the GM with guidance on how to turn the fiction into a DC, like your example of basing a Lore check on monster rarity.

I just realized why I like more hard-coded rules than "DM arbitrary". I play PbP. Having to ask and wait for the DM's answer on most action is slowing down everything to a nightmarish crawl.
So, DM empowerment is great, if you play almost always with the same people in an environment that allows instant question-answer with your DM.

But I would like to see an alternative for other gaming styles, where many decisions are based on defined rules, so I can post the roll with the action I want to do, and not a question what I should roll first.

Hussar said:

...

What you don't want is 5 different rulings on 5 different tables. Where one DM says, "Strength Check", the next one says, "Petrification save" and the next one says "Dex Check". It makes organized play an absolute nightmare for one and for another, makes any discussion of the mechanics virtually impossible because everyone's playing a different game.

Click to expand...

I absolutely see this. And I think organized play is a think D&D Next should be able to support.

Medusa (petrification) reworked - proposal 1
Medusa can only target one victim a round.
Medusa can surprise as per 5E.
Victim reveives a saving throw versus Paralysis.

Saving Throw - Succeed: Victims takes 1d12 damage and is Slowed till the end of his/her turn.

Saving Throw - Failed: Victim takes 2d12 damage an is Paralyzed, cannot avert eyes (transfixed). Certain Death next round, unless someone is able to block the line of sight between the Victim and the Medusa (tackling the Medusa and bringing her to the ground...etc)

Averting one's eyes in combat institutes Disadvantage/Advantage rules as per 5E.

Medusa (petrification) reworked - proposal 2
Medusa can only target one victim a round.
Medusa can surprise as per 5E.
Victim is automatically Paralyzed, takes 1d12 damage and receives a saving throw on the next round. The Medusa need not maintain eye contact in the next round, effects work naturally.

Saving Throw - Succeed: Victims takes 1d12 damage and is Slowed till the end of his/her turn.

Saving Throw - Failed: Victim is Petrified.

Averting one's eyes in combat institutes Disadvantage/Advantage rules as per 5E.

Note: The damage die can vary depending on the challenge rating/HD of the Medusa.

Rogue Agent said:

The problem with rejecting the idea of asking the DM how to do something that isn't mechanically defined in the rules is that it throws out the one thing that makes RPGs unique from other games.

It's not just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's throwing the baby out and keeping the bathwater.

Click to expand...

Excellent, someone that has summed up my thoughts without me typing paragraphs and paragraphs of post trying to arrive at that. If the rule system is codified to the degree there is no DM judgment then the DM can be replaced by a computer at that point.

CM said:

Except 4e didn't do this. There's a whole damn table on suggested damage values and DCs for this sort of thing that the DM is free to use or ignore. Not every DM is a superman who always comes up with a fair DC and is consistent in rulings. We're human too, and taking some of the burden off our shoulders is welcome, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

And the system before provided suggested DCs for many of the skills and appropriate DCs as well. It seems when one sees a table they read that as set in stone or have a hard time judging situations that aren't explicitly covered on the table.

To me the answer isn't more tables and charts that try to encompass all of the possible situations but doing a better job of letting players and GMs know these are guidelines and the DM will need to make judgment calls.

Hussar said:

Not really though. If you step away from D&D's incessant need to have a rule for everything and look at other systems you can see that you can have broad rules that cover large amounts of actions. You can do all sorts of cool things without the DM having to ad hoc new rules every time.

Click to expand...

I hate this need for a rule for everything, I much prefer the guideline style you describe below. I do feel this has been around since 3.x though.

Hussar said:

"How do I jump over the pit" isn't really something that DM's need to be making up rules about. Savage World's Rule of 3 for example, where, after mods, so long as you score 3, you succeed. So, the Player says, "I want to jump over the pit" the DM says, "Strength check", Player rolls and succeeds or fails.

Click to expand...

Depending on system we have this with D&D as well and had it in 3.x as well. If I want to jump over a pit it would be jump check. Both player and DM should know the mechanic for many basic actions, though they won't necessarily know the DC.

Hussar said:

What you don't want is 5 different rulings on 5 different tables. Where one DM says, "Strength Check", the next one says, "Petrification save" and the next one says "Dex Check". It makes organized play an absolute nightmare for one and for another, makes any discussion of the mechanics virtually impossible because everyone's playing a different game.

Click to expand...

Agreed - this does get out of control.

pemerton said:

For me, the game veers into "Mother may I?" territory when the player has little or no information with which to frame his/her choices, and little or no resources to draw on, in respect of action resolution.

Click to expand...

The rules of several editions provide guidelines for any number of situations that need resolved through a check. Rarely does a situation come up that we can't quickly agree on what kind of check something is. In some cases a player comes up with some really cool idea of something to do and suggests what they think the most appropriate check would be. The DM frequently says that sounds good and assigns an appropriate DC based on difficulty.

pemerton said:

So if the GM is at large to set the DC, and the player can't learn what that DC is, or shape it, I start to get a "Mother may I?" vibe. It doesn't alleviate that vibe that the GM is not playing favourites, but is rather trying to be faithful to the game and setting. Because the GM's sense of faithfulness isn't something that the player has control over.

Click to expand...

I don't think the player should necessarily know the specific DC. If they want to make a jump they should know the approximate difficulty through description or the GM saying that jump looks possible but it would be difficult. The player can then decide whether they want to try the jump, knowing they have a chance, but not a guaranteed chance.

Plus, knowing the DC simply isn't possible as a book can't outline every possible scenario. There has to be room for judgment by the DM unless we really want 4 or 5 types of jumps with no modifiers for the difficulty on a windy, rainy day.

pemerton said:

In the middle would be the rules providing the GM with guidance on how to turn the fiction into a DC, like your example of basing a Lore check on monster rarity.

Click to expand...

Yes - looks like we might actually be on the same page! I agree. Let's stop adding more and more tables and spend more time on guiding the DM on how to turn fiction into a DC which will hopefully result in more predictable results in the long run.

IronWolf said:

...
Plus, knowing the DC simply isn't possible as a book can't outline every possible scenario. There has to be room for judgment by the DM unless we really want 4 or 5 types of jumps with no modifiers for the difficulty on a windy, rainy day.
...

Click to expand...

All your samples should just cause Disadvantage and not modify the DC. The DC would just be set by the distance.

But wait, jumping distant is just determined by your run-up and Strength, without any roll at all.

Ironwolf, just pulling out this comment:

IW said:

Depending on system we have this with D&D as well and had it in 3.x as well. If I want to jump over a pit it would be jump check. Both player and DM should know the mechanic for many basic actions, though they won't necessarily know the DC.

Click to expand...

But, that gets to my point about having a different rule for everything. Why do we need a "jump check"? Something that I think 5e is really pushing for is much broader apply-able (if that's a word - Firefox spellchecker seems to think so) simpler rules. Instead of having a "jump" check and a "climb" check and a "swim" check, you simply have a "strength" check that covers everything strength related.

Which makes for a much better ruleset, IMO. You have one rule that is broadly applicable. It becomes pretty obvious most of the time which rule should be applied when something comes up that isn't quite covered - how do you rule "diving" in d20 for example? Is it a swim or a Dex check? Could be either or maybe something else.

Makes the necessity to look up rules a lot less frequent if nothing else.

IronWolf said:

knowing the DC simply isn't possible as a book can't outline every possible scenario. There has to be room for judgment by the DM unless we really want 4 or 5 types of jumps with no modifiers for the difficulty on a windy, rainy day.

Click to expand...

Well, there is the approach that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] described, by which DCs are set in accordance with a general formula. 4e uses a similar approach.

For a more simulationist approach to work, the target numbers need to be within a fairly tight band, so there's not too much room for discretion to operate.

Hussar said:

But, that gets to my point about having a different rule for everything. Why do we need a "jump check"? Something that I think 5e is really pushing for is much broader apply-able (if that's a word - Firefox spellchecker seems to think so) simpler rules. Instead of having a "jump" check and a "climb" check and a "swim" check, you simply have a "strength" check that covers everything strength related.

Which makes for a much better ruleset, IMO. You have one rule that is broadly applicable. It becomes pretty obvious most of the time which rule should be applied when something comes up that isn't quite covered - how do you rule "diving" in d20 for example? Is it a swim or a Dex check? Could be either or maybe something else.

Makes the necessity to look up rules a lot less frequent if nothing else.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I don't have any issue with the broader categories for checks. I used jump as an example, but I am good with making the category much larger. I am all for rules as guidelines and less straight jacket.

Walking Dad said:

All your samples should just cause Disadvantage and not modify the DC. The DC would just be set by the distance.

Click to expand...

Heh! I have to get used to that!

Walking Dad said:

But wait, jumping distant is just determined by your run-up and Strength, without any roll at all.

Click to expand...

I drift towards DM judgment on this. Yes, the player now knows how far they can jump, but if there are conditions that make that particular jump more difficult or less of a given then I need a way to present a chance of failure.

Jumping across a 10' gap on a sunny, breezeless day is much different than making the same jump in a heavy thunderstorm at night.