D&D 5E Improvised actions in combat

alienux · May 17, 2017

I encourage players to improvise during combat. It keeps things from getting boring by having them repeatedly say "I attack with my sword" over and over.

dave2008 · May 17, 2017

Hemlock said:
I question this claim, especially the "3x faster" part. Can you explain why you think this?

First I understand this isn't based it reality. It is based in how it appears D&D describes its reality. D&D appears to assume all actions are the same regardless of size. A giant makes two greatsword attacks. If everything involved in a human attack is also involved in a giant attack then ti must be moving much faster as the weapon has travel much further in the same timeframe. Thus, D&D appears to increase action speed linearly. Of course the actual speeds they list contradict that assumption. I was taken the stance that if the attacks are correct, then the speed is wrong and should be increased equal to the speed. Thus, 3x faster. I don't believe this or play this way, that was just the argument.

Hemlock said:
Strength in reality doesn't scale with weight; it scales with cross-sectional muscle area. In reality, something linearly 2x as big (12' tall giant) has 4x the strength; but due to D&D tropes, it needs to have 8x the strength to function correctly; therefore the missing 2x strength has to be supplied by an improved Giant-ish fantasy physiology. They must have ligaments and such which are twice as strong, pound for pound, as human ligaments.

Yes I am familiar with how the strength of materials is determined (I am architect in real life and though I rarely have to use that knowledge I did have to learn it

, but my issue was with the description of "pound to pound" not the strength of the giant. However, I realize I made and error and it helps clarify why the 2x strength seems wrong. The giant is 3x the size and thus would need to be 27x as strong (and heavy). Thus if the giant was 2x as strong, pound for pound, as you state then it would only be 18x as strong as a human and thus not dynamically similar as D&D seems to suggest.

FormerlyHemlock · May 17, 2017

dave2008 said:
Yes I am familiar with how the strength of materials is determined (I am architect in real life and though I rarely have to use that knowledge I did have to learn it, but my issue was with the description of "pound to pound" not the strength of the giant. However, I realize I made and error and it helps clarify why the 2x strength seems wrong. The giant is 3x the size and thus would need to be 27x as strong (and heavy). Thus if the giant was 2x as strong, pound for pound, as you state then it would only be 18x as strong as a human and thus not dynamically similar as D&D seems to suggest.

Yes, I was speaking about a hypothetical double-sized giant (which I would treat as Large) in the context of the square-cube law; I wasn't referring to a specific MM giant. As you say, none of the MM giants are double-size relative to humans, although I suppose Hill Giants come relatively close. I think they are (linearly) about 2.5x human size.

dave2008 · May 17, 2017

Hemlock said:
Yes, I was speaking about a hypothetical double-sized giant (which I would treat as Large) in the context of the square-cube law; I wasn't referring to a specific MM giant. As you say, none of the MM giants are double-size relative to humans, although I suppose Hill Giants come relatively close. I think they are (linearly) about 2.5x human size.

Got it - that clears it up. But didn't you mention the Huge fire giant

Of course I still think that your falling damage is too high for my liking, but to each his or her own.

GameOgre · May 17, 2017

Nothing spoils my fun like players.

That's why I DM all by myself in my basement in the dark. So it's not ruined by creativity.

Blink-Blink

I mean it's not just me right? This entire thread is jacked in the head right?

I mean a DM who says nothing ruins his fun like creativity? Come on....it's like a Lure just bobbing in the water.come bite me! Come get a taste!

FormerlyHemlock · May 17, 2017

dave2008 said:
Got it - that clears it up. But didn't you mention the Huge fire giant

Yes, but not in that context. What I wrote was, 'By doubling the falling damage, what I'm really doing is saying "you have to absorb eight times the kinetic energy..."'. But you already know that I don't double the falling damage for fire giants--I quadruple it, because they are Huge. Therefore what I'm discussing there is not the fire giant, it's just the abstract notion of doubling, or if you will a non-specific double-sized humanoid.

dave2008 · May 17, 2017

Hemlock said:
Yes, but not in that context. What I wrote was, 'By doubling the falling damage, what I'm really doing is saying "you have to absorb eight times the kinetic energy..."'. But you already know that I don't double the falling damage for fire giants--I quadruple it, because they are Huge. Therefore what I'm discussing there is not the fire giant, it's just the abstract notion of doubling, or if you will a non-specific double-sized humanoid.

Right I get that now, but during the discussion I thought you were still talking about the Huge giant, thus some of the confusion.

TheCosmicKid · May 17, 2017

dave2008 said:
I still think the distance of the fall should be adjusted, but maybe just reduce the absolute distance by the size. So a huge creature reduces the distance by 15 ' or 30' if you want to use the 2x size category the falling rules seem to assume.

I think we're all on the same page that the D&D falling rules are already a pretty ludicrous break from realism, but this adjustment goes in the wrong direction. Large creatures are more vulnerable to even small falls. A ten-foot drop can kill an elephant.

dave2008 · May 17, 2017

TheCosmicKid said:
I think we're all on the same page that the D&D falling rules are already a pretty ludicrous break from realism, but this adjustment goes in the wrong direction. Large creatures are more vulnerable to even small falls. A ten-foot drop can kill an elephant.

But most D&D monsters are not bound by traditional strength of materials and physics. A giant certainly is not, a dragon certainly is not. They (fantasy monsters) do not follow the square-cube-law that makes falling more dangerous for real animals. Perhaps a different set of rules for beasts and magical monsters if you want to be more "realistic."

And to be clear, the fall itself doesn't kill the elephant, it is the broken leg it can't recover from and starves to death. FYI, I could only find two articles about elephants falling (that weren't funny youtube videos), one survived a 6ft fall in circus and another survived a 40ft fall (into water) without serious injuries.

TheCosmicKid · May 18, 2017

dave2008 said:
But most D&D monsters are not bound by traditional strength of materials and physics. A giant certainly is not, a dragon certainly is not. They (fantasy monsters) do not follow the square-cube-law that makes falling more dangerous for real animals. Perhaps a different set of rules for beasts and magical monsters if you want to be more "realistic."

Like I said, I think we're on the same page about the lack of realism in these rules. I'm just saying that actively moving further from realism for no perceptible reason doesn't seem like the greatest idea to me. Why would you want to add this extra clause about ignoring small fall distances? What does it add in exchange for the extra complexity?