Reasonable. Yet this is also a distance that most characters can already move at. So unless you're launching the person being thrown over an obstacle or over a chasm, this distance isn't likely to be enticing.
Not terribly concerned if the distance is exciting or not. One human (even a 20 STR strong-man) throwing another human being 30ft is complete absurdity on it's face in 5E in my book, throwing any further than that is the sort of insanity that belongs in places like 3.5 or a supers game.
Is it the thrower's action, or the throwee's action?
It is an attack made by the Thrower as part of their Attack Action. Hence when I said "it's an attack".
Or is it the throwee's action, and the thrower's reaction? Or is it just the throwee doing all the rolling?
The Throwee must make a check as a result of the Thrower's action. Nothing more, nothing less.
The latter portion of the question was answered
twice.
See, you believe it to be implied, but there are many ways that it can be interpreted without clarity regarding which is "right" or "expected."
Aside from the distance issue, there is no interpretation issue except where you are creating one.
Step 1: Can you lift the Throwee? If yes, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2: The Thrower makes an attack roll against the target.
Step 3: The Throwee makes an acrobatics check as a result of the attack to put their pointy end first. Then the Throwee deals damage based on weapons...size...etc...depending on the specifics of the situation.
*situational notes: If the Thrower misses, the Throwee lands near the target but doesn't hit it and does no damage.
**If the Throwee fails their save they deal improvised weapon damage.
There is no interpretation issue.
I'm sorry, but please don't assume my motivations or reasons. Most often, I am actually the DM. With the player's consent, I AM the system. I am the rules adjudicator, I am every NPC and villain, and I am the world. I have nothing to gain by "gaming the system."
Sorry, it was a general "you" as it sounded just like all the powergamers I've ever played with who always tried to wiggle around the rules to get something for nothing.
Also, we have very different ideas of what is "cool," or "epic." D&D is not just about storytelling. It is also a game. Thus, for something to be cool or epic, it not only needs to satisfy the storytelling aspect, but also the game aspect. Hence, some success a player has that is "cool" or "epic" is also effective at achieving a desired result. If I am playing as a monk, I can say I run 30' to my target and attack. Or I can describe my monk leaping that distance in a single bound, unleashing a flurry of strikes targeting the soft spots and vulnerable joints of my enemy, making them wail in agony against my assault. Notice that effectively and mechanically, there is literally no difference between these two turns, except for how they are described. But describing every mundane, normal turn in these terms makes these cool actions common place and boring. While I am certainly practicing as a wordsmith, these are not the things that will be remembered. However, using creative problem-solving to attempt something risky, that is "cool" and "epic." Even failing such attempts can be "cool," "epic," or lead to the stories that players and DM alike will remember and retell for years to come. The ordinary actions and tactics that get used over and over again are not what make things memorable.
True, but as I point out to [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] the response of the player to the DM laying out how things are going to happen determines which the player is putting priority into. Are they looking to gain power with little effort, or are they looking to do something potentially awesome regardless of the outcome? Where is their game priority?
As I said, I've played with powergamers before, heck I generally consider myself one. It gets tedious after a while. Are we here to have fun and do neat things regardless of how we have to do them, or are we here to argue about rules and rulings? I'm a strict DM because over the years I've lost patience for the latter. Someone wants to do something "cool" but wants to argue about the ruling then they can either choose not to do it or toss off.
So yes, we are in agreement that there should be a cost to pulling off crazy, "epic" maneuvers. There should be risk. But the reward should be commensurate with what is spent, and what is risked. If two players have to use their action, then the potential reward should be at least what the two characters could have done separately with their actions. If additional resources are required, such as specific spells, then the potential reward should be even greater. If there is a risk of catastrophic failure, such as not making it across that ravine you are being tossed over, or needing multiple checks to determine the degree of success of failure, than the reward should match what is put in.
Well, in the example I gave there wasn't much cost (an attack) and a check. So the results reflect that. Heck, the Throwee still has their whole turn...after they land.
But it may encourage them to double down and make new suggestions and creative problem-solving that could possible address my initial concerns. To me, that isn't "gaming the system," but rather being thoughtful about the possibilities achievable within the system given certain, possibly scenario specific, conditions and constraints.
And I suppose I just don't see the players re-enacting the Gimli toss or the Fastball Special to be very creative. It's not "my character wants to try something unique just to them!" It's "I want to do this thing I saw on TV!" which to me is sort of the
opposite of creativity.
Ok. Once again, I will point to abilities, spells, and items that would make this tactic more feasible and also limited. Characters with Powerful Build, Enlarge, Reduce, Bear's Strength, Rage, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Potions of Giant's Strength, Gust of Wind, Jump... there are so many things that already exist in D&D that contribute to parts of this maneuver being possible. How is a fastball special not within the power level of 5e?
Again, I addressed this further down. It's all covered by the simple rules I detailed and the rules already existing in D&D. Size increases increase carrying capacity. More strength increases carrying capacity and makes it easier to hit a target. 5E is about
simplicity. Throwing other people as a means of attack just...doesn't strike me as within 5E's intended realm. It seems to be steering away from the zany fantasy, of which "throwing people as an attack"
is.
This is absolutely fair, and please I hope that you do not take my comments as a personal attack or stating that you "aren't playing D&D right." If you have take what I've said in that way, my apologies. As I reread your original post, I think I reacted more emotionally to your post without reading it through carefully. Certain elements struck a chord with me, such as the idea of "punishing" players through dice. I think this triggered thoughts of previous experiences I've had where a DM allowed me to attempt something, only to nerf my success to the point that it was effectively a failure even though I technically succeeded based on the parameters I was given. In my experience, this approach is frustrating to players, and if a DM feels strongly enough that something doesn't fit in the game or make sense, it would be better to state as much and be upfront with the players, rather than to present yourself as being ok with the player-directed course of action while functionally making it impossible. So, my apologies for getting fired up and misdirecting that energy at you. That wasn't my intention.
I will always lay out the "rules" of how something will work before the players attempt it. Thrower needs to make an attack, don't Nat 1. Throwee needs to make a check, don't Nat 1. Then Throwee gets to deal damage appropriate to whatever the specific details of the situation are. Probably weapon + strength in most situations.
But I think you misunderstand me. When I say difficulty, I don't mean that the action or attempt is hard. I mean that reward should be commensurate with what the players invested, as well as the possible consequences of failure. If two or more players invest their actions or even whole turn for something, then the possible outcome should be at least equal to what those players could have achieved individually, so long as it makes sense and is reasonable for the desired outcome. Additional resources such as spells, use of class/race abilities, or consumable items should also be taken into consideration.
Which is why I kept it simple and not resource intensive. I can't really stop players from investing more into it, but these resources already have specific effects. I'm not going to give them bonus effects just because they decided to use them in this situation. That just promotes the idea that players can get
extra stuff when they do crazy things.
And I'm really trying not to promote crazy things.
What if my group doesn't bother with encumbrance or typically need rules regarding what a light load is?
Well, the default carrying capacity rules in 5E are 15xStr. Certainly more room than I allowed. But the rules are also more precise, you just
can't carry more than that. It's a hard cutoff. So at 20 Str that's 300lbs. Certainly enough to toss the
average character. My rules above still work. You just have a larger range to work with. Halfling McScrawnyarms still won't be throwing Big Bill, but Big Bill might be able to toss several halflings.
Maybe for you. But clearly we see and value different things. What sounds like noise to you is a beautiful melody to me (Get off my lawn! These crazy kids with that noise and mumble rap. That's not music!)
5E is in large part, elegant in its simplicity. I try to design rulings to echo that. It's not perfect, but I'd rather have one rule that covers 90% of situations than attempt to design for corner cases.
Sure. And that's your style and it works for you. But that doesn't mean the tool is not available to you should you need it. A DM that is open with their players and discusses concerns about the game openly is going to ultimately engage in a more cooperative, cohesive game that evolves towards the best possible game experience.
I
am open with my players. I'm up-front with the fact that I start out strict and open things up as I get a feel for how the players like to play. Am I playing a game with a bunch of reasonable sound-minded fellows or a bunch of rules-lawyering murder-hobos? One of these groups will get more leeway than the other, and it's not the second group.
). There is room for both story and optimization. Especially since D&D is not just about a story or creating challenges, but it's also a game. As a game, why is it bad to feel like you can "win" at certain things?
