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

I have a bit of a test for those of you who strongly dislike dissociated mechanics. I want you to rationalize the in character and player actions in the following scenario in the D&D Next ruleset.

A goblin shoots a human fighter with a bow and scores a critical hit. Now according to Next, a critical always hits and always does maximum damage. So, the goblin does 6 damage. The fighter has Combat Superiority dice available and rolls them to lessen the damage (all fighters come with this baked in at the moment). He rolls a 6 and reduces the damage to zero.

Now, I know exactly what the player did. He followed the rules and no harm no foul. What happend in the game world? Can you rationalize his actions without ret-conning the goblin's attack?

Now, if you can't, why aren't you condemning Next just as vehemently as 4e? After all, 4e has effects similar to this. There's very little difference between the example above and a Warlord's healing powers really.

Note, the fighter's CS dice damage reduction won't work if you require it to be rolled before an attack is made. He doesn't get enough dice. Or, you'd have to treat it as DR against all attacks. Or, maybe treat it as DR against the first hit, but then it is a much weaker power because I might waste my DR on a single point of damage and not the critical hit that comes next.

These are purely gamist mechanics for making the fighter tougher in a fight. Now, personally, I have zero issue with this. But, let's see you kind folks justify this from a process simulation point of view. For bonus points, let's see the HP=Meat crowd explain how our fighter in the example above is now poisoned from that arrow attack.

This should be interesting.

Hussar said:

I have a bit of a test for those of you who strongly dislike dissociated mechanics. I want you to rationalize the in character and player actions in the following scenario in the D&D Next ruleset.

A goblin shoots a human fighter with a bow and scores a critical hit. Now according to Next, a critical always hits and always does maximum damage. So, the goblin does 6 damage. The fighter has Combat Superiority dice available and rolls them to lessen the damage (all fighters come with this baked in at the moment). He rolls a 6 and reduces the damage to zero.

Now, I know exactly what the player did. He followed the rules and no harm no foul. What happend in the game world? Can you rationalize his actions without ret-conning the goblin's attack?

Now, if you can't, why aren't you condemning Next just as vehemently as 4e? After all, 4e has effects similar to this. There's very little difference between the example above and a Warlord's healing powers really.

Note, the fighter's CS dice damage reduction won't work if you require it to be rolled before an attack is made. He doesn't get enough dice. Or, you'd have to treat it as DR against all attacks. Or, maybe treat it as DR against the first hit, but then it is a much weaker power because I might waste my DR on a single point of damage and not the critical hit that comes next.

These are purely gamist mechanics for making the fighter tougher in a fight. Now, personally, I have zero issue with this. But, let's see you kind folks justify this from a process simulation point of view. For bonus points, let's see the HP=Meat crowd explain how our fighter in the example above is now poisoned from that arrow attack.

This should be interesting.

Click to expand...

Because I have faith that CS dice (or action dice for that matter) will be an optiona module not a default assumption. Therefore i will simply not use that option if I find it unpleasant.

Hussar said:

A goblin shoots a human fighter with a bow and scores a critical hit. Now according to Next, a critical always hits and always does maximum damage. So, the goblin does 6 damage. The fighter has Combat Superiority dice available and rolls them to lessen the damage (all fighters come with this baked in at the moment). He rolls a 6 and reduces the damage to zero.

Now, I know exactly what the player did. He followed the rules and no harm no foul. What happend in the game world? Can you rationalize his actions without ret-conning the goblin's attack?

Click to expand...

The goblin shoots an arrow straight at the fighter's head. The fighter raises up his shield and blocks it. What's the problem? The damage was never applied. The fighter wasn't killed and brought back to life. No retconning needed.

There's very little difference between the example above and a Warlord's healing powers really.

Click to expand...

Except that in the case of nonmagical healing, the damage is applied, and then removed. That's not a trivial difference!

Nor is that the only difference. A fighter could plausibly be using some physical movement to achieve the effect, whereas with the warlord, we have to believe that it's entirely psychological.

These are purely gamist mechanics for making the fighter tougher in a fight.

Click to expand...

I agree on the level that at the moment, only a fighter can do it. Reactionary damage reduction is actually very simulatory, but there's no good explanation for why another character can't do it. It remains to be seen whether the designers will wise up and copy the Trailblazer apprach (making this a fuction of base attack).

It also raises the question of what AC is and why armor and shields do not ablate damage the way CS does. Which is a legit question regardless of CS, really.

For bonus points, let's see the HP=Meat crowd explain how our fighter in the example above is now poisoned from that arrow attack.

Click to expand...

He shouldn't be. That would be an example of a mistake. If an attack does no damage, those "riders" should be eliminated (as is the ground rule in 3e redgarding damage reduction). Hopefully this is the kind of thing a playtest fixes.

This should be interesting.

Click to expand...

The contention that CS somehow resembles martial powers is just bizarre. It has its issues, but it's already light years ahead of that approach.

Hussar said:

I have a bit of a test for those of you who strongly dislike dissociated mechanics. I want you to rationalize the in character and player actions in the following scenario in the D&D Next ruleset.

A goblin shoots a human fighter with a bow and scores a critical hit. Now according to Next, a critical always hits and always does maximum damage. So, the goblin does 6 damage. The fighter has Combat Superiority dice available and rolls them to lessen the damage (all fighters come with this baked in at the moment). He rolls a 6 and reduces the damage to zero.

Now, I know exactly what the player did. He followed the rules and no harm no foul. What happend in the game world? Can you rationalize his actions without ret-conning the goblin's attack?

Click to expand...

Seeing the arrow coming true, he swatted it out of the air with his sword pulling himself out of perfect position (and thus preventing the critical strike on his turn). I won't like Next as much if the arrow was poisoned and the poison can still take effect even though the damage was negated, however. In that case, the arrow is deflected, but still manages to nick the Fighter.

Now, if you can't, why aren't you condemning Next just as vehemently as 4e? After all, 4e has effects similar to this. There's very little difference between the example above and a Warlord's healing powers really.

Note, the fighter's CS dice damage reduction won't work if you require it to be rolled before an attack is made. He doesn't get enough dice. Or, you'd have to treat it as DR against all attacks. Or, maybe treat it as DR against the first hit, but then it is a much weaker power because I might waste my DR on a single point of damage and not the critical hit that comes next.

These are purely gamist mechanics for making the fighter tougher in a fight. Now, personally, I have zero issue with this. But, let's see you kind folks justify this from a process simulation point of view. For bonus points, let's see the HP=Meat crowd explain how our fighter in the example above is now poisoned from that arrow attack.

This should be interesting.

Click to expand...

Nagol said:

The player is modifying the motives and goals of the NPCs -- the wizard wants to escape past the Fighter -- even if there is no route out there. The dragon suddenly becomes overconfident regardless of past behaviour or motivations.

Click to expand...

No, the character is using the motives and goals of the opponents against them - just as any skilled martial artist ought to do! Why do rogues searching for traps and wizards dispelling an enemy's magic get to act in skilled and flexible ways to suit the situation before them, but fighters don't?

billd91 said:

I really can't agree with that assessment at all. The CS dice throttle how much a PC can do at one time but don't prevent him from trying a move multiple times (successfully). AEDU does prevent it. That's a key difference.

Click to expand...

It is, indeed, a key difference. And it's why I find CS much harder to reconcile with any sort of consistent "reality". If a character can try a trip or drawing move on an opponent, fail it, and then try the sama move again and succeed I can only imagine that the opponent is either incompetent or an imbecile. The idea that the exact same move will work on a skilled opponent multiple times seems beyond "dissociated", to me.

billd91 said:

My problem with the overnight healing is I find it changes the game for the worse. It removes an important decision point for the players - whether or not to withdraw from the encounter zone completely to recover. I think the game's much better and has more texture when it has a recovery time of more than one long rest.

Click to expand...

You have a good point regarding the decision whether or not to withdraw from the "encounter zone", but it seems to me that this is exactly what "extended rest" means. At least as I run it, the only type of rest possible in any sort of "encounter zone" is a short one. To get an extended rest, the party need to establish a safe camp at the very least. At that point, why on earth does it matter if the required pause is one night or one week??

billd91 said:

I'd say it's also the U. I don't really see why some of those utilities are encounter/daily other than to for metagame reasons. Why can my rogue only tumble once an encounter?

Click to expand...

Self evidently, it seems to me, because the opponents will be ready to block a tumble done the same way a second time. It's a simple representation of the benefits of in-combat surprise.

billd91 said:

As far as Essentials go, too little too late. 4e had already lost me for good.

Click to expand...

Yes; this I think is the nub of much of 4e's problems. Many folk seem to have leaped to early conclusions and then approached 4e only with their minds wide shut.

Balesir said:

It is, indeed, a key difference. And it's why I find CS much harder to reconcile with any sort of consistent "reality". If a character can try a trip or drawing move on an opponent, fail it, and then try the sama move again and succeed I can only imagine that the opponent is either incompetent or an imbecile. The idea that the exact same move will work on a skilled opponent multiple times seems beyond "dissociated", to me.

Click to expand...

I don't like CS in its current for, but I disagree with you here.

Maybe, the opponent is an idiot. Maybe, the opponent is not skilled or is lesser skilled than the fighter. Maybe, the fighter saw a weakness the first time around that they can exploit. Maybe, he feints to lure the opponent in position. It is not like in MMA opponent's fail to connect with the Superman punch early on with one or two attempts and knock the guy out later. Nor is it unheard of for people to choke out people with some of the more difficult chokes to apply despite failing to apply it on earlier attempts. In the movie Troy, people knew Achille's maneuver which was used several times.

And, in 4e, people might be engaged in other parts of the battlefield, but after downing one opponent, you still can't attempt it when encountering someone else simply because you have used the daily or encounter.

Balesir said:

Yes; this I think is the nub of much of 4e's problems. Many folk seem to have leaped to early conclusions and then approached 4e only with their minds wide shut.

Click to expand...

Time to can the insults. I bought the 4e PH and DMG. I played for over a year. I found the game wanting as a D&D experience. How the hell open minded do I have to be before I decide a game isn't what I want?

Balesir said:

No, the character is using the motives and goals of the opponents against them - just as any skilled martial artist ought to do! Why do rogues searching for traps and wizards dispelling an enemy's magic get to act in skilled and flexible ways to suit the situation before them, but fighters don't?

Click to expand...

Because the Rogue does not get to say "This pit trap has a switch over here that turns it off" and the Wizard doesn't get to say "Magic Missile is the obvious counter to his Frost Ray!" -- those choices are outside the player's control.

Combatants have always had the ability to use motives and goals against the opponents. Discerning players have always used moves against the expected motives of their opponents.

The Fighter's player gets the ability to assign those goals and motives in order to correspond to the abilities used. "The dragon becomes overconfident", "The wizard tries to escape past the Fighter", "The assassin falls for the feint" all assign motives and actions to characters outside the normal control of the player and regardless of the psyche and behaviour set of the opponent.

It is, indeed, a key difference. And it's why I find CS much harder to reconcile with any sort of consistent "reality". If a character can try a trip or drawing move on an opponent, fail it, and then try the sama move again and succeed I can only imagine that the opponent is either incompetent or an imbecile. The idea that the exact same move will work on a skilled opponent multiple times seems beyond "dissociated", to me.

Click to expand...

I've been thrown twice in a row -- using different techniques, but with the same result. I have no doubt my opponent could have tossed me a couple of more times as well if he hadn't decided to ease up.

Nagol said:

I've been thrown twice in a row -- using different techniques, but with the same result. I have no doubt my opponent could have tossed me a couple of more times as well if he hadn't decided to ease up.

Click to expand...

Yep. I have my own accounts where relative experience was a big factor at being able to routinely pull of maneuvers- in two accounts, I was the inexperienced person.

A long time ago when I did martial arts I had to work with another student that was somewhere from 13-15, because he was much larger than his peers. I was only a belt or two ahead of him and told that I could not use punches or kicks. Instead, I intercepted his attacks and outer reap throwed him at will (although I controlled his fall down). After watching for several minutes in amusement, the instructor pulled me aside, and told me that I could not use my arms. For about two minutes, I simply evaded with body shifting and jammed his kicks with my leg before getting tired and he grazed me with a punch to the rib.

Similarly, when I began my martial arts studies (the first time around), I used to spar with friends, who were brown belts in another style and served in Desert Storm. In addition I also sparred with my stepfather . Both the brown belts were surprised at the striking, joint break techniques I learned as a white belt, because they had not learned similar techniques until much later. They were impressed that I could get shots in and had decent timing from the limited sparring i had done. However, they quickly took advantage of my inexperience and quickly used it against me with feints to take advantage of my anticipation and faster reactions.

Against a friend with decades of SCA experience, it was not even close. He trounced another friend and myself several times (we had no weapon experience and limited unarmed training). He had a lot of quick economical maneuvers with a two handed sword which he often wielded more like a spear as opposed to swinging it around like the movies. The technique he used involved holding the sword in a manner that hid its length. When we, finally, began to "catch on" on to the technique and figure out the timing which is to say he could only hit us 6 or 7 times out of ten times. He mixed it up with or simply switched to another technique.

Ahnehnois and Nagol - you have both ret-conned the results. The orc scored a critical. That is an established fact. The DM rolled and got a 20. The player has then retconned things by negating the damage.

And you are both perfectly okay with that?

Note, the character cannot block the attack because it was a critical hit. The rules say that a critical hit ALWAYS hits. If I roll a 20, I hit. No matter what. Yet, the DM rolled a 20 and suddenly misses?

Note, the player can apply this ret-con EVERY SINGLE ROUND if he chooses to.

ShadeyDM - I doubt this is going to be a module to be honest. It seems pretty baked into the character since fighters actually gain pretty much nothing else.