Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

Jester David · Oct 4, 2018

pemerton said:
Not that I can think of (classic D&D has evasion rules, but they're a bit different). But 4e does have a generic resolution system - skill challenges - that can be used to resolve a race. (It will play out more like the Ben Hur chariot race than an Olympic event - whether that's good or bad is a matter of taste, but I think 4e wears its gonzo on its sleeve.)

I would have assumed that 5e was equally clear - it's resolved by making checks and comparing them (or perhaps a sequence of checks as [MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION] suggests, though the Basic rules don't offer a system for aggregating check results into an overall outcome). But the predominant view in this thread seems to be that, in fact, you can only run a contest between two characters and they have to be fighting over something (a ring, a door, etc) and so to resolve a race you need to house rule.

The thing is, it's not a "house rule". You're not changing a rule or really adding a rule per se. You're making a ruling. You're deciding how the action is resolved in this instance, likely using the existing Chase rules in the DMG. Which isn't *that* different from deciding how a skill challenge is resolved in 4e, if even that. Really, a footrace is short and should probably just be opposed skill checks.

Lanefan · Oct 4, 2018

pemerton said:
Which looks curiouly like a contest!

I guess what I'm missing is what's at stake in distinguishing what you describe from a contest and positing it instead as a house rule. No one has actually explained in a way that is clear to me why it matters that two (or more) characters are struggling to be the first to break the ribbon rather than the one to grab the ring.

I don't think it matters in the least.

I was just trying to answer your DC question.

That said, I think one of the quibbles people are having with the use of the word 'contest' here is that it seems by RAW a contest can - both by definition and provided examples - only involve two participants. Dumb wording, but there it is, and it means a multi-person foot race or rolling for initiative cannot be called contests using the RAW definition even though common non-D&D usage of the term says they are.

And that said, there seems to be a noticeable uptick recently in the amount of quibbling over 5e rules wordings and RAW specifics, which seems to go directly against the "rulings, not rules" ethos of the system. This ain't 3e, folks!

Maxperson · Oct 4, 2018

Hriston said:
Initiative involves the DM comparing the results of the combatant's DEX checks, just as s/he does in a contest. The initiative roll itself is just a DEX check. How it's handled is what makes it special, which is just like a contest except for the specific rule on breaking ties.

That doesn't matter, though. A similar, even the same exact mechanical resolution, does not make it the same thing. The attack mechanic and ability check mechanic are identical. Both are d20+modifiers equal or greater than DC = success. Less than = failure. Jeremy Crawford confirmed them as identical mechanics for different categories of actions.

That initiative is similar to a contest, does not make it a contest. It's still indirect opposition at best, and a contest requires direct opposition.

You can decline to oppose the efforts of monsters to kill and eat you if you want, but according to the rules, combat is typically "a clash between two sides". If you get too far away from that description, it probably doesn't need to be resolved in combat.

It's not a matter if you want to oppose the efforts of the monsters or not. That opposition(or not) comes with attacks, spells, running, etc. Initiative itself is not opposition to them, since you are free to act how you like, which includes running your behind off or trying to talk to them instead of opposing anyone.

I think the order the DM is meant to decide in the event of a tie between combatants is the sequential order normally determined by initiative. I believe that's the intent.

You might be right, or perhaps not. I try not to assume intent on things like this that don't really matter.

Maxperson · Oct 4, 2018

pemerton said:
Which looks curiouly like a contest!

I guess what I'm missing is what's at stake in distinguishing what you describe from a contest and positing it instead as a house rule. No one has actually explained in a way that is clear to me why it matters that two (or more) characters are struggling to be the first to break the ribbon rather than the one to grab the ring.

Like with attack rolls and ability checks, that use identical mechanical resolutions, just being similar or the same mechanically does not make them the same in the game. An attack roll is not an ability check. Initiative is an ability check, but is not a contest.

pemerton · Oct 4, 2018

Jester David said:
The thing is, it's not a "house rule".

Well, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and other posters in this thread seem to think it is.

Maxperson · Oct 4, 2018

Lanefan said:
I don't think it matters in the least.

I was just trying to answer your DC question.

That said, I think one of the quibbles people are having with the use of the word 'contest' here is that it seems by RAW a contest can - both by definition and provided examples - only involve two participants. Dumb wording, but there it is, and it means a multi-person foot race or rolling for initiative cannot be called contests using the RAW definition even though common non-D&D usage of the term says they are.

And that said, there seems to be a noticeable uptick recently in the amount of quibbling over 5e rules wordings and RAW specifics, which seems to go directly against the "rulings, not rules" ethos of the system. This ain't 3e, folks!

When discussing RAW, you are discussing RAW and not things that make sense for RAW to have included, but didn't. As I said upthread, I will not only be allowing contests to involve more than 2(so long as they are in direct opposition), but will also in certain circumstances, allow ties to involve a change.

cmad1977 · Oct 4, 2018

Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

A lot of people trying to be ‘right’ about what constitutes a contest. Embarrassing.

5e is light mechanically.

Hriston · Oct 4, 2018

Maxperson said:
That doesn't matter, though. A similar, even the same exact mechanical resolution, does not make it the same thing. The attack mechanic and ability check mechanic are identical. Both are d20+modifiers equal or greater than DC = success. Less than = failure. Jeremy Crawford confirmed them as identical mechanics for different categories of actions.

That initiative is similar to a contest, does not make it a contest. It's still indirect opposition at best, and a contest requires direct opposition.

I’d say opposition doesn’t get too much more direct than combat. It’s when combat happens that you roll initiative. Direct opposition is inherent in the situation.

It's not a matter if you want to oppose the efforts of the monsters or not. That opposition(or not) comes with attacks, spells, running, etc.

And attacks, spells, running, etc. come with initiative.

Initiative itself is not opposition to them, since you are free to act how you like, which includes running your behind off or trying to talk to them instead of opposing anyone.

If all that’s happening is trying to talk, there’s no need to roll initiative. Initiative is for when combat happens.

You might be right, or perhaps not. I try not to assume intent on things like this that don't really matter.

It matters in terms of whether the rule adds anything to the game compared to the rule not existing. I think it gives some definition to the DM’s role in establishing the initiative order.

Maxperson · Oct 4, 2018

Hriston said:
I’d say opposition doesn’t get too much more direct than combat. It’s when combat happens that you roll initiative. Direct opposition is inherent in the situation.

This is a False Equivalence. Initiative isn't combat. Initiative is initiative. Combat is swinging your sword at someone's AC. That's direct opposition, but isn't an ability check, so there's no contest there, either.

And attacks, spells, running, etc. come with initiative.

Not relevant. Spells and attacks come with levels, too. Are levels combat? Are levels direct opposition? No. the same with initiative. Just because it leads to direct opposition, doesn't make it direct opposition.

If all that’s happening is trying to talk, there’s no need to roll initiative. Initiative is for when combat happens.

Sure there is, at least sometimes. You round a corner and a group starts to attack you. There wasn't time to talk before initiative, but someone in the party wants to give peace a chance.

Hussar · Oct 4, 2018

pemerton said:
I think this is true.

Personally I'm a bit struck by what seems to be the predominant view in this thread - that 5e can't resolve a footrace without house rules. (I'm not sure eg about a chess game.) If that's true, then the system is far more narrow than its superficial presentation would suggest. Even if its not true, the fact that its not self-evident one way or another is striking.

I would hardly characterize it as predominant. You've got one or two people who are playing silly buggers semantic games and the rest of us who could resolve that using the existing rules without much worry. The only reason that there is an argument at all is because [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] refuses to accept that just because the book says a contest uses two opposed characters it cannot then be used for more than two.

I would not say that this is a predominant view. Loud maybe, but, not predominant.

Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

Jester David

Hero

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

pemerton

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

cmad1977

Hero

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Hussar

Legend

Similar Threads

Related Articles