D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

Hussar said:

But, that's not the dissociated part. Why is it, when I trip someone, I can ONLY trip one person per round, no matter what? AND, if I trip someone, I can never, ever hit someone as hard as I possibly can. Until six seconds later, when I can.

The only difference is the refresh rate.

Click to expand...

BIG difference here. I can try it multiple times in a fight. E and D moves, I can't. My PC's desires have nothing to do with it. The structure of the powers prevents it and not for consistent in-game reasons either.
But what's this about multiple attacks now? How does that enter into this? I'm starting to think your ranting is going all out of control.

Hussar said:

It certainly does prevent him from trying a move multiple times. You cannot, ever, hit someone as hard as you can AND trip someone in the same round. No matter what.

Click to expand...

Aside from knockdown and deadly strike not being the same move at all, I believe I can use them together. I'm not seeing anything saying I can't use one of my CS dice to apply knockdown while using another for deadly strike. I just can't go all out with deadly strike because I'm also trying to accomplish something else.
That said, I can try to trip again next round. So, yes, I can try a move multiple times in a fight. I don't see how you can argue you can't.

Hussar said:

Nice way to change the scenario. My point is, no matter how many CS dice you have, you cannot spend them on damage and tripping. Why not? Why can I only trip someone if I hold back on attacking him.

Note, I will only be attacking one target here. There's no provision at the moment, for me to gain additional actions. So, no matter what, I cannot hit someone as hard as I can and knock them off their feet. Doesn't matter if I'm 1st level or 20th.

Click to expand...

We've only got 5 levels of character here. Multiple attacks may be in the offiing, we don't know yet. A bit premature to say you can't do it "no matter what." (And technically, that isn't even true thanks to cleave - although that is dependent on particular circumstances.)

Hussar said:

But, like I said, we'll do all sorts of mental gymnastics to show how anything non-4e is easily associated. I mean, the same argument you give here applies EQUALLY to AEDU attacks.

Click to expand...

I think we're seeing more people disagree with that than agreeing in this thread. You may be the one who is incorrect.

Hussar said:

Yup, tap dancing. I mean, it's been shown how many times how ridiculously easy this is to adjust. Heck, Next has the rules BAKED RIGHT IN. Is that all 4e required? A paragraph saying, "Hey if you want a slower healing rate, don't give them full HP after a full rest, just give them X healing surges back"? Really? Yet, 5e gets the pass and 4e doesn't.

Click to expand...

What makes you think 5e is going to get a free pass on overnight healing? Because people have been focusing on other topics? How about 5e get's a "let's wait and see" because it's not in final form yet? 4e? That's not being play tested any more. They made their decision and those of us critical of it made ours.

Hussar said:

So, fans complain about a missing mechanic, the developers give them EXACTLY what they want, but, screw them? So, why bother in the first place? I mean, we're talking what, two years? Maybe? From the time 4e is released until Essentials?

Click to expand...

This makes the bad assumption they gave me exactly what I wanted with Essentials. Sure, there are classes that aren't based around AEDU, but there are still plenty of elements of 4e I consider warts. Besides, how long am I supposed to wait for WotC to give me the game I want? I was put off of 4e before the PH2 came out - I decided I wasn't going to wait that long when Paizo already had a game more to my liking in the pipeline. For that matter, WotC had already put out a game more to my liking (3e) than the one they replaced it with. So, why am I supposed to wait 2 years for a mid-edition revision of the game?

Hussar said:

Why on earth would any game company court you then? They fixed the problem. They should you exactly how, within the context of the AEDU system, you can create characters that fit perfectly with your playstyle. Never mind that you could simply have done it yourself, the same way that we did every other edition of D&D.

Click to expand...

They fixed a problem, not the problem. And why would they want me as a customer? When they were producing RPGs I liked, I bought a lot of stuff from them. Isn't that enough of a reason?

LostSoul said:

Elements of CS dice may be dissociated, but I don't think Trip is.

<snip>

It's nonsensical for the reasons you give, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a pre-packaged connection to the game world.

Click to expand...

billd91 said:

At 5th level, I can exceed the normal damage a weapon does and knock them down. That seems pretty good to me. Why exactly is this dissociated?

Click to expand...

I must confess that my non-understanding of what exactly counts as "dissociation" is becoming even more non-.

But here's the "dissociation" that I see (somewhat contra LostSoul, therefore, and in agreement with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]): if I, playing a fighter with CS dice, want my PC to knock down his/her foe, I must decide to shift a die from (say) damage (Deadly Attack) to Knock Down. Thus, in choosing to have my PC knock someone down, I am choosing to do less damage than I otherwise would. How is that associated? As a player, I have to make the choice after I hit? How is that associated? What choice by my PC does it correspond to - it is a retcon of my intentions in launching the attack? I, as a player, know that my most damaging attack will never knock someone down. Does my PC know that? If so, how? If not, where is the association? - because my decisions are now influenced by knowledge of something that my PC does not know.

LostSoul is correct that this fiction is nonsensical if the mechanic is treated as a process simulation rather than metagame - because how can my hardest attack not be my best chance to knock someone down?

But I think LostSoul is wrong that it using the CS dice to knock down a foe is "associated", for the reasons I've given.

billd91 said:

But what's this about multiple attacks now? How does that enter into this?

Click to expand...

I raised multiple attacks upthread. I don't see how "no more than one effective hit per 6 seconds (or 10 seconds in B/X, or 60 seconds in AD&D)" is any more or less associated than "no more than one Rain of Blows per 5 minutes". They are both parcelling out of success chances over an ingame time period.

billd91 said:

I can try it multiple times in a fight.

Click to expand...

I think Hussar's point is that you can't try it multiple times in a round. And hence that, just as encounter and daily powers are limited in the frequency with which they can be deployed, so is everything else in D&D combat: it has a very strict action economy. (This is not true of all mainstream fantasy RPGs. Rolemaster and HARP both approach this differently, for example - Rolemaster has many options for continuous initiative and some options for giving up attack bonus to get multiple attacks, and HARP has a range of options for giving up attack bonus to get multiple attacks.)

The principal difference that I can see between the 1x/round ability and the 1x/enc ability is that the game rules don't require you to consider what your PC is doing more than once per round, whereas they do require you to consider what your PC is doing more than once per encounter. But while that is a difference, I'm not at all sure how it factors into any issues of "dissociation".

nogray said:

I think this is referring to the power posted by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], "Get Over Here." Perhaps this was cleared up in the intervening days and posts, but I thought I'd chime in, anyway.



That is pretty explicitly a "grab your friend and move him around you" power. It has a range of "Melee 1;" That with the effect means that they have to start and stop adjacent to you. All PC races have a reach of at least one square. It also targets allies, and by my reading (some disagree with this), that means that the target has to agree with the movement or they can resist it automatically (by declaring themselves "not an ally" for the purposes of that power).

The power doesn't let you move someone from across the battlefield, nor does it allow you to do anything other than move them from one square adjacent to you to another square adjacent to you. There is no "tele"kinesis. With the range, the default flavor text, and the effect, it seems pretty clearly to be "grab him and yank him into place" or "nudge him with the non-pointy bit of your weapon."

Click to expand...

Yeah, I got confused with the range with the other power presented.

But what if your ally weighs 6,000 lbs? Or is incorporeal? Or covered in flames that burn any who touch him? Or the declaring character has lost the ability to move himself?

Once it was pointed out as a reach power, I acknowledged the possibility of "grab and heave" as a common asssociation, but it doesn't fit in all cases where the power functions.

And if the target declares himself not an ally, does any other ally-targeting effects or riders immediately stop working and does he now count as a threat and grant flanking?

As written, it doesn't require consent. In fact it is explicitly compulsory.

That happens in 4e, too. If a wizard throws a fireball into the midst of his companions, they get burnt, too. That power targets all creatures. There are some (typically divine) area-of-effects that don't hurt allies (or even aid them). What they were referring to was a "table rule" that Encounters (or was it the "living" games?) have in force that you "can't" throw a fireball and include your allies without their (the player of that potential target) permission. It's an "enforced courtesy" thing, since you are (likely) playing with strangers.

Just some thoughts on (what I perceived to be) a misunderstanding. I hope it wasn't coming too late or too redundant with what (10+pages of) posts have come since [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] made these posts (five or so days ago).

Click to expand...

I got that; some tables don't allow any for of player versus player action. It happens a lot in MMORPGs too. In many such games, area-effect abilities only affect hostiles in most parts of the game and literally cannot be used to affect anyone nomially allied with you.

pemerton said:

I must confess that my non-understanding of what exactly counts as "dissociation" is becoming even more non-.

But here's the "dissociation" that I see (somewhat contra LostSoul, therefore, and in agreement with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]): if I, playing a fighter with CS dice, want my PC to knock down his/her foe, I must decide to shift a die from (say) damage (Deadly Attack) to Knock Down. Thus, in choosing to have my PC knock someone down, I am choosing to do less damage than I otherwise would. How is that associated? As a player, I have to make the choice after I hit? How is that associated? What choice by my PC does it correspond to - it is a retcon of my intentions in launching the attack? I, as a player, know that my most damaging attack will never knock someone down. Does my PC know that? If so, how? If not, where is the association? - because my decisions are now influenced by knowledge of something that my PC does not know.

Click to expand...

As a player, you have the option to announce after you hit. You can make the choice and announce as early as you like. I suspect folks that want association will make their choice before dice are rolled.

The character is choosing to attempt to get his opponent on the ground -- in effect is spending some of his force not on inflicting more damage, but on destabilsing and/or uprooting the opponent. How is that not associated? Is the character likely to know that this split in focus and move to inflict a specific status on his opponent is likely to result in less damage? I'd say yes. Just like a leg sweep isn't as likely to bruise or disable as snap kick.

LostSoul is correct that this fiction is nonsensical if the mechanic is treated as a process simulation rather than metagame - because how can my hardest attack not be my best chance to knock someone down?

Click to expand...

Because the attack that is skillfully constructed to do the most damage doesn't waste part of that force on getting the opponent knocked over?

But I think LostSoul is wrong that it using the CS dice to knock down a foe is "associated", for the reasons I've given.

I raised multiple attacks upthread. I don't see how "no more than one effective hit per 6 seconds (or 10 seconds in B/X, or 60 seconds in AD&D)" is any more or less associated than "no more than one Rain of Blows per 5 minutes". They are both parcelling out of success chances over an ingame time period.

I think Hussar's point is that you can't try it multiple times in a round. And hence that, just as encounter and daily powers are limited in the frequency with which they can be deployed, so is everything else in D&D combat: it has a very strict action economy. (This is not true of all mainstream fantasy RPGs. Rolemaster and HARP both approach this differently, for example - Rolemaster has many options for continuous initiative and some options for giving up attack bonus to get multiple attacks, and HARP has a range of options for giving up attack bonus to get multiple attacks.)

The principal difference that I can see between the 1x/round ability and the 1x/enc ability is that the game rules don't require you to consider what your PC is doing more than once per round, whereas they do require you to consider what your PC is doing more than once per encounter. But while that is a difference, I'm not at all sure how it factors into any issues of "dissociation".

Click to expand...

Nagol said:

The character is choosing to attempt to get his opponent on the ground -- in effect is spending some of his force not on inflicting more damage, but on destabilsing and/or uprooting the opponent.

<snip>

Because the attack that is skillfully constructed to do the most damage doesn't waste part of that force on getting the opponent knocked over?

Click to expand...

There is a bit that I think I'm missing. Isn't the best way to knock someone over to pound them so hard they go flying? Or to do so much damage to their leg, hip etc that it can't support them and they fall over?

I'm neither a physiologist nor a fighter, so my thinking about these things is influenced mostly by comics, movies and the Rolemaster crit tables, but in those sources damage and knock down are correlates rather than contrasts.

pemerton said:

There is a bit that I think I'm missing. Isn't the best way to knock someone over to pound them so hard they go flying? Or to do so much damage to their leg, hip etc that it can't support them and they fall over?

I'm neither a physiologist nor a fighter, so my thinking about these things is influenced mostly by comics, movies and the Rolemaster crit tables, but in those sources damage and knock down are correlates rather than contrasts.

Click to expand...

In effect, the dice represent a tactical trade off that models plausibly well in the game world.

Punching someone in the face is not typically used to knock the victim off his feet. Knocking the legs out typically hurts the victim a lot less than a punch to the face.

The results chosen by the player can be the actions chosen by the character. What outcome is the character striving for?

As for plausibility, the CS dice represent expertise -- using the available force well. Striking to injure would be using the expertise to attempt strikes at vulnerable areas, or perform strikes that maximise energy transfer. Striking to trip requires targeting balance points, maximising momentum transfer, or forcing the opponent into unbalanced positions and then taking advantage of them.

For all we know, a feat or ability like Awesome Blow will exist seperately in 5e to handle "hit so hard he was lifted off his feet" schtick.

Bob: Disassociation is simply more logical when I describe it because my biased argument makes more sense than yours.

Jim: "Disassociation", you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

pemerton said:

There is a bit that I think I'm missing. Isn't the best way to knock someone over to pound them so hard they go flying? Or to do so much damage to their leg, hip etc that it can't support them and they fall over?

Click to expand...

The first works - but is beyond the abilties of most people. Besides, if you have that much brute force and are trying to kill someone you apply it with something narrow that will at the very least fracture their bones rather than send them flying. The second works - but if their leg can't support their weight then they are probably at zero hp and you're incapacitating them in an odd way.

Methods 3 and 4 on the other hand are useful in their own right. 3 involves timing and putting a force from an odd angle along their weak axis. Or just tripping them. At this point they are on the ground and in trouble. 4 is to drive them back (or even lure them forward) into bad ground where they are likely to lose their footing.

Hussar said:

But, that's the problem though. Combat Superiority dice are AEDU mechanics with a new coat of paint.

Click to expand...

That would have to be a very thick coat of paint: The former being a round-by-round resource management mechanic, and the latter encounter- and daily- resource management.

At no point in your fighter's existence can he ever, regardless of anything, ever hit something as hard as he can and trip it. It is not possible under the mechanics as they are now.

Heck, his hardest blow can never, ever, knock something off its feet. How's that for dissociated?

Click to expand...

Dissociated is in the eye of the hater. No TTRPG mechanic could ever be so concrete and realistic that a sufficiently determined critic couldn't find some lame interpretation that would allow him to judge it dissociated.

Tony Vargas said:

It worked really well for the game, in a technical sense, addressing known problems with the game that had long been complained about by fans and mocked by detractors. In the business sense, I don't think the technical changes really made the difference, though. When I look for a cause, I find it helpful to ask the question 'what's different?' The 1e/2e and 2e/3e rev rolls didn't result in the same level of crazy that the 3e/4e one did. So, what was different about them?

Click to expand...

For me it didn't improve technically. Was it easier to learn to play? Maybe. But was it more fun to play for me? No. Not at all. In fact it's the only edition of D&D that I've pretty much decided to never play again.

Tony Vargas said:

The degree of change was much less in the 1e/2e roll, but the 2e/3e and 3e/4e rolls were both pretty substantial changes, so that doesn't explain the difference in the reaction. Similarly, the changes in all three cases were positive, and responsive to well-known problems: 2e fixed known mistakes and issues in 1e, 3e finally did away with long-derided race/class level limits & multi-classing and consolidated on a single, consistent resolution mechanic, 4e finally addressed long-standing class & encounter balance issues.

Click to expand...

The explanation was the style of game. Obviously we all agree 3e made a lot of changes. But I still believe the style of game didn't change nearly as much as it did in 4e. There was a recent poll about what games people are playing. The most surprising statistic for me was that there are almost as many 3.5e players as Pathfinder players. Both those groups were larger than the 4e group. So Pathfinder beating D&D one month was shocking but what's happening as far as playstyle breakdown is even grimmer for 4e.

Tony Vargas said:

The obvious next (npi) question is how will 5e avoid the same problem. Well, maybe by being an OGL game, and welcoming d20 back to the WotC fold? We haven't heard anything on that subject as yet, AFAIK. While the 3.0/3.5 changeover wasn't a full rev-roll, it did show that fans and collaborators were reasonably willing to embrace a shift in the flagship d20 game and a revised SRD. If D&D:Next is just the flagship of d20:NEXT with an NSRD, there could be relatively little resistance. If it uses something like the GSL, the OGL can continue to be used as a rallying point for those who reject it (and there have been some with every rev-roll).

Click to expand...

I believe 5e will not be OGL. I believe 3e wouldn't be OGL if Hasbro had a time machine. It was a great thing for us the customers but as a business move I don't believe it was so great.

The best case scenario for 5e is they recapture their former players (3.5e, some Pathfinder, some 4e).