Why have dissociated mechanics returned?

[pemerton]

It should definitely have Fear and Psychic as keywords though.

It has both: Fear as originally printed, and Psychic via stealth errata. (And as I posted upthread, the failure to have Psychic from the get-go is a pretty obvious oversight.)

4E has a lot of immediate forced movement which is actually the target moving in response to an event. To my knowledge, those are all modeled as "Push".

In 3E, there is a state of "Panicked", where you drop everything and flee. That doesn't fit the intent, which is much more lightweight than the 3E effect.

The difference is interesting: A character "choosing" to move, but on an opponents turn and requiring no action cost, vs a character "choosing" to move but only on their next initiative, and with an action cost.

All this seems right to me.

Some mechanics I do dislike however, such as armor piercing on the Minotaur. Essentially the Minotaur attack is completely unavoidable.

Huh? All you have to do is inflict enough penalties on the Minotaur that it misses AC 10.

 

[FireLance]

Huh? All you have to do is inflict enough penalties on the Minotaur that it misses AC 10.

Actually, the attack roll has to be at least 10. If the minotaur misses on a roll of 9 or less, it doesn't deal any damage.

Now, if we were to model this mechanic in 3e or 4e, we would probably have something along the lines of: if the minotaur misses an attack against AC, but still hits the target's touch AC or Reflex, it deals 4 points of damage.

However, what we are up against in 5e is that we don't have a touch AC value (probably for simplicity), and the developers probably don't want to get the players to deduct their PCs' armor bonus from their AC at the table.

You could probably make it seem a little less disassociated if it gets worded as follows: if the minotaur misses an attack, add 4 points to its attack roll. If it now hits the target, the target takes 4 points of damage. However, you still get corner cases: an unarmored target, for example, still gets "hit" and takes damage even though it has no armor to pierce.

You know, I'm starting to think that there are no disassociated mechanics, simply disassociated names (or alternately, there are no disassociated mechanics, only disassociated non-magical mechanics).

 

[pemerton]

Actually, the attack roll has to be at least 10. If the minotaur misses on a roll of 9 or less, it doesn't deal any damage.

Ah, I misread that - so it's the same a Glancing Blow, then, except for the fixed damage.

Still, that doesn't seem very mysterious to me - the modelling might be a bit rough-and-ready (eg it's not as nuanced as your touch-AC variant), but it hardly reeks of "it must be magic!"

I'm starting to think that there are no disassociated mechanics, simply disassociated names (or alternately, there are no disassociated mechanics, only disassociated non-magical mechanics).

I haven't worked out yet how a "dissociated" mechanic differs from a metagame mechanic that someone dislikes!

Except now all these things which are pretty obviously not metagame, but simply rough-and-ready process simulations- the minotaur's armour piercing, the gnoll's pack savagery, the hobgoblin's discipline - are being called out as dissociated!

It's weird. But you're right that dissociation is confined to the non-magical, and - once imperfect process simulations start to get labelled as dissociated - almost impossible for the non-magical to avoid!

 

[FireLance]

Except now all these things which are pretty obviously not metagame, but simply rough-and-ready process simulations- the minotaur's armour piercing, the gnoll's pack savagery, the hobgoblin's discipline - are being called out as dissociated!

Ha! I remember rough-and-ready process simulations. We had a 1 in 6 chance of finding secret doors (1-2 in 6 for elves) ... and we liked it!

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

You could in theory. But there are at least three good gameplay reasons why you shouldn't.

The first is that if you do it that way there's a hideous interaction with opportunity attacks. If the PC is moving using a move action, everyone adjacent to them gets a free swing, and that's just too much.

The second is action denial. People don't mind forced movement but don't like having their actions denied. It feels as if your PC is being taken out of your control - a negative experience.

The third is narrative - and partly a consequence of not all melee classes having strong charge attacks. With your forced movement you can waste a whole turn. With the forced movement as written, you recoil, steel yourself, step back in, and try to send the Wight back where it came from. If all melee PCs could charge effectively this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

You've misinterpreted by idea. All I want is the forced movement to take place at the start of a player's turn and to be under their control. It would not use up an action, it would not provoke OA (though the fact that forced movement doesn't has always been.. irritating). It would simply be Ongoing Forced Movement 3 (lasts 1 round). At the start of your turn you must move 3 away from the Wight before taking your actions. There are no interactions, same as being Pushed, but in my mind it better models running away from something you fear - in particular you will follow a sensible exit route (yes, I understand that in a panic you will sometimes run into hazards, but in 4E you *always* run into a hazard).

 

[pemerton]

At the start of your turn you must move 3 away from the Wight before taking your actions. There are no interactions, same as being Pushed, but in my mind it better models running away from something you fear - in particular you will follow a sensible exit route (yes, I understand that in a panic you will sometimes run into hazards, but in 4E you *always* run into a hazard).

But that's what awesome. I mean, what's the point of having a Deathlock Wight in a room with pits if the PCs recoiling in fear don't stumble into said pits?! (My PCs had roped themselves together, so it was only half-as-awesome for me, but even better for the players, as they sat around congratulating themselves on taking a precaution that actually worked out.)

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I haven't worked out yet how a "dissociated" mechanic differs from a metagame mechanic that someone dislikes!

Except now all these things which are pretty obviously not metagame, but simply rough-and-ready process simulations- the minotaur's armour piercing, the gnoll's pack savagery, the hobgoblin's discipline - are being called out as dissociated!

It's weird. But you're right that dissociation is confined to the non-magical, and - once imperfect process simulations start to get labelled as dissociated - almost impossible for the non-magical to avoid!

To me, something is dissociated if there is a better way to represent it within the existing rules structure. I will accept something becoming slightly more complicated as a result, though some may not. It is about elegance.

If you take Come And Get It as a pretty damned dissociated power, its unclear if its intent is to attack many foes (and it surrounds you with them as a means to achieve this) or if it is trying to cluster your enemies (and this happens to be around you). If the former, you could have a power that allows you to shift 1 and attack a creature before shifting back to your starting square until you have attacked all creatures you can (as a sort of fencing-ninja). If the latter, you could shift some squares and pull any enemy that you pass as you literally lure them into following you. If both, you could still associate it better with an initial attack on Will, as you attempt to feign a weakness that might provoke your enemies in to attack you.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

But that's what awesome. I mean, what's the point of having a Deathlock Wight in a room with pits if the PCs recoiling in fear don't stumble into said pits?! (My PCs had roped themselves together, so it was only half-as-awesome for me, but even better for the players, as they sat around congratulating themselves on taking a precaution that actually worked out.)

But that always happens! You never, ever run in fear between hazards, or past them, you always run into them! Sometimes multiple times (if you save the first time and there's enough forced movement)!f

Why did they rope themselves together? They knew it had a push attack. Would a character genuinely fearful not slash the rope to escape?

 

[pemerton]

To me, something is dissociated if there is a better way to represent it within the existing rules structure.

<snip>

If you take Come And Get It as a pretty damned dissociated power <snippage which I think is not too misleading> you could still associate it better with an initial attack on Will, as you attempt to feign a weakness that might provoke your enemies in to attack you.

What I like about Come and Get It (pre-errata) is that it can be a feigning of weakness, or (in the case of the fighter PC in my game) deft work with a polearm, or (in a narration suggested by [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]) a way of breaking out of the stop-motion turn sequence. This last idea came up when I was posting about the first use of CaGI in my game: the fighter might sprinted across a room and up some stairs to a balcony, then did CaGI - which among other things pulled some of the archers who had run down a ladder at the back of the balcony back up. AbdulAlhazred suggested this is best seen as a modest retcon or interrupt: the archers were trying to run away, but never really made it because the fighter, with his Mighty Sprint, got there first and cut them all down.

For me, this narrative flexibility is not a problem. If anything, it's a strength.

That's not an objection to your analysis - I guess all I'm saying is that when you say "better way to represent it" you are applying a certain interpretation of what is better in mechanics design that is not universal.

Out of interest - does your criterion mean that [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION] is right to describe finding secret doors in classic D&D as dissociated. I mean, there's almost certainly a more elegant perception mechanic possible!

 

[Tony Vargas]

My apologies of all of the following has already been said:

From the Bestiary:

„Mob tactics“. In the description it says that the creature chooses an opponent. Other allies that also have this trait gain a bonus to their attack and damage against the chosen opponent. However, there is no explanation of what is happening and I’m struggling to find an answer.

Picture a mob ganging up on someone. They attack from all sides, one holds him while the others punch him, one knocks him down and the others stomp him. What he's doing might be as simple as growling "get him" then makes an aggressive, but easily defended against attack to absorb his attention while his buddies move in on his unprotected back, or it might be some choreographed series of cooperative maneuvers where they support eachother.

The gnoll is „Savage“, but only when it can see two other creatures with the Savage trait within 30 feet. Why?

Gnoll psychology as pack animals?

The Hobgoblin has a „Disciplined“ action. It chooses a foe within it’s reach, and the next attack against this foe from his ally has advantage. But what is the Hobgoblin doing?

Executing some well-drilled maneuver in coordination with his ally, no doubt. Roman legionaries, for instance, would use their shields to block the foe directly in front of them, but attack the enemies to their /right/, for instance.

Continuing with the Hobgoblin, it has the „Steadfast“ trait, meaning it cannot be frightened while an ally is within 30 feet. Why not?

Not wanting to show fear in front of his comrades?

the minotaurs „Armor Pearcing 4“ where the minotaur’s foe takes damage even though he wasn’t hit from the attack (something which I personally can’t stand).

Damage on a miss, much like damage on a hit, can be a matter of more than just actual wounds. An attack could be so brutal or aggressive that even if you avoid the brunt of it, you still expend some of that precious luck/skill/etc, or still get battered a little even though you got your shield in the way in time. That's just hps.

The Halfling can move through spaces of creatures that are larger than it. I find it awkward to accept that every Halfling in the world could do this against every larger creature.

Meh. That's a matter of scope and abstraction. 'Halfling Nimbleness' could work only for most halflings, only vs certain creatures, only in certain circumstances, with every creature, circumstance, and halfling prerequisite (height, DEX, whatever) all detailed, but it'd be far more rules than such a modest ability calls for.

Also, the Stout Halfing’s „Fearless“, where he takes an action to end the frightened condition. What action does the Halfling take and how does it look like? I don’t like it when the rules tell us that something is an action when it isn’t really an action.

It's instead of an action. You're frightened, but rather than staying frightened you fight through it.

Spells:
What I dislike considering associated or dissociated mechanics is the fact that you can cast some spells as Rituals and others not.

Well, some spells would be pretty worthless with a ritual casting time - like any combat spell. I'm going to put you all to sleep! Just wait while I get out my 50 gp of material components and chant for 5 minutes. Might as well make 'em some warm milk or valerian tea.

I’m also having a hard time to accept that some spells can be cast in rounds where the caster also does some other action. If I was a caster I would ask myself why I can't cast my other spells and also do something else during the casting.

Some spells are presumably shorter and/or easier than others.

I dislike that some spells only affect creatures with a certain hit point maximum. I wish my players wouldn’t have to wonder about how many hit points the monsters have (or Hit Dice, which, although closer to how old editions of D&D did it, I wouldn’t find much of an improvement).

Yeah, it's prettymuch a return to the HD limits of classic D&D. The sense of it isn't hard to see, though: if a monster can resist being beaten to mush by dwarves with giant hammers, it can resist being turned to mush by magic.

Having to think about Hit Point breaks the player’s immersion and tells them to think about monsters from a „we’re playing a game and this is my opponent“ point of view.

That's a problem with hit points, yes. If you can't handle the abstraction of hps - which, really a sort of ablative 'plot armor,' and 'narrativist' and dissociative as all heck - then D&D was probably never your game.

The Fighter:

This iteration of the D&D Fighter, in comparison, can only make the combat maneuvers that he has mastered by aquiring them with a feat.

I'm not sure it's a feat, exactly, Fighting Styles follow the same pattern as Specialities, which are collections of feats, though, so maybe it is?

Doesn't sound too dissociative, though: you can do the things you've trained to do, not the things you haven't.