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

Hussar said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is no retcon. A 20 always hits, but a hit can be reduced to zero damage. The arrow shot was true and the PC countered with an ability that reduces damage before it is applied. He didn't negate the hit.

That's no different than if the goblin scored a critical on something with DR. The only difference is unlike inherent DR the damage soak is limited to number of times per round and may be applied at the PC's whim. It is analogous to Opportunity Attack or any other form of interrupt/reaction mechanism.

Hussar said:

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?

Click to expand...

No one's saying his attack didn't hit, they're saying that it hit and did no damage.
That happens with DR all the time, even on crits. Again, there's no retcon. The hit on the attack roll indicates the attack was successfully targeted and physically contacted the target, and the damage roll, taking into account the CS reduction, indicated that it did no damage. All of that happened at once. No one went back in time and changed anything.

Nagol said:

Because the Rogue does not get to say "This pit trap has a switch over here that turns it off"

Click to expand...

I think the player of the Thief/Rogue can say exactly that - if you're using Find/Remove Trap rolls or Disable Device checks.

DM: Make a Disable Device check.
Player: I got a 25.
DM: You beat it by 15.
Player: My thief says, "Hey guys, there's a switch here that turns it off."

If the Thief/Rogue's player can't, then I think it's a stretch to say that the Fighter's player can. If the DM says, "No, there's no switch there," he can also say that Come and Get It doesn't work.

Ahnehnois said:

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.

Click to expand...

How is this different from a miss against the Fighter's AC from his shield? That is, how does the character in the game world know the difference? The Fighter is trying to stop the attack using his shield, with or without Parry from Combat Superiority.

The player needs to know that the arrow hits before he uses Parry. How does the character know that the arrow is going to hit - that is, how does he know that it's going to hit if he doesn't use Combat Superiority? And why, from first level, is the Fighter never incorrect about this assumption?

LostSoul said:

How is this different from a miss against the Fighter's AC from his shield? That is, how does the character in the game world know the difference? The Fighter is trying to stop the attack using his shield, with or without Parry from Combat Superiority.

Click to expand...

When he uses the ability, presumably he's devoting an unusual amount of attention to it or trying harder; his CS dice are a representation of how skilled he is and thus how effectively he is able to use his time in this context.

The player needs to know that the arrow hits before he uses Parry. How does the character know that the arrow is going to hit - that is, how does he know that it's going to hit if he doesn't use Combat Superiority? And why, from first level, is the Fighter never incorrect about this assumption?

Click to expand...

I believe you are articulating how poorly written the ability is, as with the poison thing. Yes, obviously, you should probably have to declare any form of reactionary defense before you know these things for balance as well as for plausibility. That's how every reaction mechanic I've seen works, and I assumed it would be how this would work, and if I were running it that would have been an automatic ruling. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they'll fix it because it's a playtest. It is a problem.

Ahnehnois said:

When he uses the ability, presumably he's devoting an unusual amount of attention to it or trying harder; his CS dice are a representation of how skilled he is and thus how effectively he is able to use his time in this context.

Click to expand...

That's what I would go with as well.

Ahnehnois said:

Yes, obviously, you should probably have to declare any form of reactionary defense before you know these things for balance as well as for plausibility.

Click to expand...

I think one of the reasons these issues arise is because of how initiative works in 5E - the turn-based "stop-motion" combat that I'm not very fond of. I can see how a trained fighter might be able to realize that a specific shot is a deadly/dangerous one, but since that choice comes outside of your "turn", you have to wonder - what else can I do when it's not my "turn"? Why can I raise my shield or knock an arrow to the ground but not take a step?

I would rather that they either drop the abstraction of combat or go back to AD&D or B/X-style abstraction.

Last night I was playing D&D with a guy who has done some medieval martial arts. It was his third session of D&D ever. He was face-to-face with a smallish dragon (Medium size, D&D 3.5) and he dropped his Greataxe to use his Longsword in a specific way. It was a pity that how he described his attack had no importance, since it was obvious he was into the whole thing. I'd rather that each combat round was obviously abstract - so I could say, "What are you trying to do over the next 15 seconds/one minute?"

Hussar said:

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.

Click to expand...

I will be surprised if anything more than bonus damaged gets automatically "baked in" to be quite honest.

Hussar said:

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

Click to expand...

I prefer melee abilities to be available every single round its nonsense limits like per encounter that annoy the heck out of me.

billd91 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Total, I was all up for 4th Ed, I even started the 4th Edition Avengers' shenanigans (much to my dismay), but after DMing it consistently for 2 years I became disillusioned.

For the past few years I've been looking at all the "Editions" to see what I can come up with, using Basic as a core.

Funny that Basic has 10 second rounds, but AD&D has 1 minute ones.

Nagol said:

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.

Click to expand...

If the rogue rolls well enough then they do, at least in 3.X, get to say that there is some way of turning the trap on and off (i.e. disabling it in such a way that they can enable it again later). The spell "Dispel Magic" can dispel all sorts of spells - how does the wizard know what precise magical effect will work against that specific enchantment? Simple - they get to specify that there is a weak spot in the enchantment that means it can be dispelled.

Nagol said:

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.

Click to expand...

On a gross scale, of course - knowing that the enemies are protecting a specific thing or trying to get a specific object is something that can be leveraged. But there are all sorts of tiny-scale motives and intentions that are revealed in body language, positioning and other "tells", that a skilled fighter can take advantage of. These minute clues and instantaneous motives are not detailed in any roleplaying system that I have experienced, mostly, I suspect, because doing so would take forever. It's an area where abstraction is almost mandatory - but the more common course is simply to ignore it altogether, crippling the "mundane" character types in the process.

Nagol said:

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't totally clear; the fighter doesn't get to "assign" the motives and goals at all - the fighter gets to determine that there were some motives and/or goals that s/he could use. Given that such motives and goals occur all the time in any opponent who is not wary specifically that they may be used against them, it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable supposition to simply assume that there are some such motives and goals present.

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...

Different powers could render a fighter prone just as well; are you saying that you weren't more wary of similar moves after you had been thrown once? Perhaps, even, that was why your opponent used a different technique the second time?