D&D 5E Legends & Lore Article 4/1/14 (Fighter Maneuvers)

[LostSoul]

No, the real point is that when you write a rules system which does not even try to simulate reality in favor of a gameist combat system it should not come as surprise that the players expect things to work according to gameist expectations, including tripping oozes, instead of simulationist common sense.

One thing I've always wondered about this "tripping oozes" thing - can't you trip oozes in 3E? There doesn't seem to be any rule against it. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Mistwell]

One thing I've always wondered about this "tripping oozes" thing - can't you trip oozes in 3E? There doesn't seem to be any rule against it. Maybe I'm missing something.

Looks like it. Nothing in there about not being tripped, or immunity to being knocked prone.

 

[Nagol]

One thing I've always wondered about this "tripping oozes" thing - can't you trip oozes in 3E? There doesn't seem to be any rule against it. Maybe I'm missing something.

Not according to WotC (though there is nothing in the rules to support this ruling).

 

[Remathilis]

One thing I've always wondered about this "tripping oozes" thing - can't you trip oozes in 3E? There doesn't seem to be any rule against it. Maybe I'm missing something.

I decided to search the SRD and you were right; there was no specific prohibition.

HOWEVER

I did find this:

Who Can Be Tripped: Any creature that is subject to gravity and somehow holds itself off the ground is subject to trip attacks.Incorporeal creatures can't be tripped -- even by other incorporeal creatures -- because they can't fall down. A prone creature has already fallen down and can't be tripped. (This can prove significant when you've tripped a foe and wish to keep him down; see the section on being tripped [below].) Limbless creatures pretty much just lie on the ground (at least while using their normal land speeds or just standing around on a fairly level space) and usually can't be tripped unless they're climbing or in some other precarious situation. This includes creatures with the ooze type, snakes, and anything else that wiggles and slithers. The rules don't give any guidance on creatures whose body types make them immune to trip attacks, so you'll have to rely on your common sense here.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a

This advice is very different than the advice the 4e

Can an ooze be knocked prone?
In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition.

http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1395/~/d&d:-faq-for-the-monster-manual

 

[Wulfgar76]

As for which edition had the 'fakest' combat, I don't think 4e was any worse than 3e.

With the grid and minis out, opportunity attacks flying, proning, flanking, 5' stepping, full attacking – combat in both editions devolved into a complicated, counterintuitive board game – certainly not anything resembling a fantasy simulation of an actual battle.

 

[LostSoul]

I decided to search the SRD and you were right; there was no specific prohibition.

HOWEVER

I did find this:

Yeah, I and now I wonder if there's something in one of the books about it too. Sometimes I forget that the SRD is missing quite a bit of content! I like the 3E advice a lot. The 4E advice, not so much (any more, at least).

I tend to side with ExploderWizard on this - D&D combat is best when it's abstract. I'm going to play my old 4E hack for the first time in a while later tonight (after the hockey game... ) and I went in the opposite direction there: I took out the abstraction. I wouldn't call the combat system that I've put together "D&D" any more, though. I think if you're going to go that way you might as well go all the way.

 

[Li Shenron]

I decided to search the SRD and you were right; there was no specific prohibition.

HOWEVER

I did find this:



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a

This advice is very different than the advice the 4e



http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1395/~/d&d:-faq-for-the-monster-manual

Wow. Really two completely different games.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Wow. Really two completely different games.

I'd rather call it different outsets. 3e still clings to the story-telling tradition in which words and terms have meaning and can be interpreted.

4e eschews this archaic formula and embraces abstraction. Prone is an abstract term used in the system. It doesn't matter that it sometimes doesn't comply with any real-world reading of the term. It just means a function within the game system.

This change in perspective is a real problem as is illustrated by the infamous discussion relegated to the temporary sub-forum.

 

[Minigiant]

Basically
a "change the mechanic to match the flavor" crowd
vs a "change the flavor to match the mechanic" crowd.

We'd been doing it forever. And we pick an option each time the game breaks the tropes and reality we choose and feel change is needed. Some choose case by case and some paint the whole game with one preference.

 

[Cyberen]

I am VERY HAPPY with what WotC is doing here. The Battle Master is looking like tons of fun, and the Warrior too, and everybody will be able to choose his own complexity comfort zone : a clear win !
Exception based design is a tricky tool, and I agree the game has to rely on a clear and efficient core engine. Concerning 5e, the engine is here (ability checks), but the systematic use of a d20 makes it a bit whacky (perfect for combat, too unreliable for mundane checks IMHO). Some say "Basic combat maneuvers" should be accessible to any character. Yay ! But I certainly wouldn't consider disarming someone as a "basic maneuver" : it should be simulated by some grappling rules making it very difficult... or abstracted as a critical hit or as narrating the final blow (for me, abstract is ad-hoc abstract favoring a smooth integration of story and mechanics, not some primacy of mechanics over narration).
The 4th edition engine seems as suited for running 1 vs 1 encounters than chess or Blood Bowl : it sucks badly, and I am happy to get a leaner engine able to handle some naturalistic framing of combat. Yes, two people having an argument should be allowed to draw weapons in a featureless back alley without causing a system failure !