D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Hussar]

This seems pretty much divorced from reality, if you ask me. There is a substantial difference between combat superiority and daily martial powers with respect to dissociation.

This whole drum you're beating about dissociative mechanics only being "bad" if they come from 4e is getting old particularly when I, at least, have provided examples of how people have had problems with dissociative mechanics in the past (though we didn't have the dissociative term to use then). Somehow, those cases don't exist for you and I can't begin to understand why.

Examples like skill progression (which I brought up IIRC)? You mean examples that haven't actually been addressed in any version of D&D ever? Those examples? The ones that get a free pass, despite being every bit as dissociated as anything in 4e, simply because they didn't come from a 4e book?

Those examples?

See, the reason I'm banging this drum is we're seeing things with a bit of new light. If it was, "I hate dissociated mechanics in games, I won't play games with dissociated mechanics", then fine. Fair enough. 4e wouldn't be for you and nor would 5e (and likely D&D in generally to be honest). But, that's not the issue. It's "I hate dissociated mechanics, but only when they come with a 4e tag".

 

[Nagol]

Examples like skill progression (which I brought up IIRC)? You mean examples that haven't actually been addressed in any version of D&D ever? Those examples? The ones that get a free pass, despite being every bit as dissociated as anything in 4e, simply because they didn't come from a 4e book?

Those examples?

See, the reason I'm banging this drum is we're seeing things with a bit of new light. If it was, "I hate dissociated mechanics in games, I won't play games with dissociated mechanics", then fine. Fair enough. 4e wouldn't be for you and nor would 5e (and likely D&D in generally to be honest). But, that's not the issue. It's "I hate dissociated mechanics, but only when they come with a 4e tag".

Careful with how wide a rush you are painting with. I provided examples of disassociated mecahnics from other game systems that I didn't like. I also pointed out that the digs made at 2e's and 3e's skill systems of their poor association.

Some of the examples you use (like CS dice) I consider abstract but not disassociated.

Anyway, i promised myself I would only lurk so *activate invisibility drive*

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Examples like skill progression (which I brought up IIRC)? You mean examples that haven't actually been addressed in any version of D&D ever? Those examples? The ones that get a free pass, despite being every bit as dissociated as anything in 4e, simply because they didn't come from a 4e book?

Those examples?

See, the reason I'm banging this drum is we're seeing things with a bit of new light. If it was, "I hate dissociated mechanics in games, I won't play games with dissociated mechanics", then fine. Fair enough. 4e wouldn't be for you and nor would 5e (and likely D&D in generally to be honest). But, that's not the issue. It's "I hate dissociated mechanics, but only when they come with a 4e tag".

Just to blissfully stick my nose in the middle and probably get it blooded, I think you are both somewhat right, but coming at the question from different angles.

I agree with you that in any kind of "inherent" sense that the original "disassociated" stuff is claiming exists in mechanics, that all the things you say are disassociated, are, if the "theory" is to have any meaning. However, in any kind of rational examination that removes "inherent" out of the picture, an association that occurs with a person and a given mechanic is going to depend on a host of factors. Considered thus widely, then I think [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] is correct that Combat Superiority will generally be easier to associate.

I think this is because of the patina of simulation that I've referenced lately. That is, if you take a mechanic and paint it up with some kind of facade of association, it will be more likely received as somehow inherently so, even though it's nothing but a paint job. If you do a bad paint job, then it will be enough for some people, not for others. If you do like 4E does, and say essentially, "Hey, I've got a default paint job for this thing called out right here as a paint job. If you don't like, pick another"--then that's great for people who don't like the paint job, not so hot for people who want to interact with the facade instead of the actual thing.

The way human beings associate things in their heads is part pattern matching, part past experience, part preference, but also then a fair amount of belief and emotion in place of logic or analysis. The facade appeal to the fuzzier aspects of association. Combat Superiority works harder to maintain that facade, and thus should appeal more to those aspects.

 

[billd91]

Examples like skill progression (which I brought up IIRC)? You mean examples that haven't actually been addressed in any version of D&D ever? Those examples? The ones that get a free pass, despite being every bit as dissociated as anything in 4e, simply because they didn't come from a 4e book?

Those examples?

And my point is that they don't get a free pass from everybody. They never have gotten a free pass from everybody. That suggests, as I've stated before, that dissociative mechanics rub some people the wrong way and that there may be a threshold level that people are willing to accept but not accept beyond that level.

See, the reason I'm banging this drum is we're seeing things with a bit of new light. If it was, "I hate dissociated mechanics in games, I won't play games with dissociated mechanics", then fine. Fair enough. 4e wouldn't be for you and nor would 5e (and likely D&D in generally to be honest). But, that's not the issue. It's "I hate dissociated mechanics, but only when they come with a 4e tag".

Or more like "I don't like the dissociated mechanics in the 4e-introduced AEDU structure". After all, that seems to be where most of the complaints are centered, right? And that's entirely reasonable since that structure is unique to 4e (albeit with precursors in Tome of Battle which, I might add, is also highly controversial among 3e fans).

 

[braro]

And my point is that they don't get a free pass from everybody. They never have gotten a free pass from everybody. That suggests, as I've stated before, that dissociative mechanics rub some people the wrong way and that there may be a threshold level that people are willing to accept but not accept beyond that level.



Or more like "I don't like the dissociated mechanics in the 4e-introduced AEDU structure". After all, that seems to be where most of the complaints are centered, right? And that's entirely reasonable since that structure is unique to 4e (albeit with precursors in Tome of Battle which, I might add, is also highly controversial among 3e fans).

I wonder if we can't say: "I don't like the AEDU structure" and leave out the dissociated mechanics. I don't think you can make AEDU be made "Associated" since it is representing Outcomes and not Process.

My take from Skyrim:

If my character has 100 mana (or stamina) and casts a spell (power attack) that takes 30 mana (or stamina), he can use that ability 3 times in a standard encounter. That's the process behind it.

The outcome is that he has Power Attack / Firebolt 3/encounter.

One is modeling the mechanics leading up to the outcome, and the other is the outcome.

The part of this thread that is talking about everyone "seeing" the game in different ways, but playing with the same rules, has been cool, because that is how I see it happening more and more at my table. My wife is in her anime mode, the fighter is playing street fighter, and so on.

 

[nogray]

GM's abiliity to mitigate bad rules aside, is there anything that explains how PC1 can force PC2 to move against his will when he isn't in range to be grabbed or that can impose the desire to move? The power as presented is very straightforward; it doesn't offer the opportunity for movement; it imposes it without any integration with the in-game world. As written, it would be catnip for a particular style of toxic player I'm familiar with.

----------------------------------

The disconnect occurs when player 1 thinks there is a tactical value to PC2 moving and player 2 disagrees. The power used doesn't give PC2 a choice to respond -- he is moved. Nohing in the ability suggests how PC2 was moved -- was the character dominated? Was he convinced of the value of the opening and is changing his tactical plan even if it means sacrificing a goal PC2 thinks is valuable? Was he telekinetically grabbed and shifted directly?

I think this is referring to the power posted by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], "Get Over Here." Perhaps this was cleared up in the intervening days and posts, but I thought I'd chime in, anyway.

Get Over Here Fighter Utility 2
You pull one of your allies into a more advantageous position.
Frequency of use: Encounter
Power Source: Martial
Action: Move Action
Range: Melee 1
Target: One ally
Effect: You slide the target up to 2 squares to a square adjacent to you.

That is pretty explicitly a "grab your friend and move him around you" power. It has a range of "Melee 1;" That with the effect means that they have to start and stop adjacent to you. All PC races have a reach of at least one square. It also targets allies, and by my reading (some disagree with this), that means that the target has to agree with the movement or they can resist it automatically (by declaring themselves "not an ally" for the purposes of that power).

The power doesn't let you move someone from across the battlefield, nor does it allow you to do anything other than move them from one square adjacent to you to another square adjacent to you. There is no "tele"kinesis. With the range, the default flavor text, and the effect, it seems pretty clearly to be "grab him and yank him into place" or "nudge him with the non-pointy bit of your weapon."

Whereas at my table, PCs do end up in conflict, rivalies do develop, and area effect powers are tossed into combats with allies both willing and unwilling. The PCs are subject to the same in-game effects as the other inhabitants are save for explicit differences in the ruleset like those seen in Space Opera.

That happens in 4e, too. If a wizard throws a fireball into the midst of his companions, they get burnt, too. That power targets all creatures. There are some (typically divine) area-of-effects that don't hurt allies (or even aid them). What they were referring to was a "table rule" that Encounters (or was it the "living" games?) have in force that you "can't" throw a fireball and include your allies without their (the player of that potential target) permission. It's an "enforced courtesy" thing, since you are (likely) playing with strangers.

Just some thoughts on (what I perceived to be) a misunderstanding. I hope it wasn't coming too late or too redundant with what (10+pages of) posts have come since [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] made these posts (five or so days ago).

 

[Hussar]

Or more like "I don't like the dissociated mechanics in the 4e-introduced AEDU structure". After all, that seems to be where most of the complaints are centered, right? And that's entirely reasonable since that structure is unique to 4e (albeit with precursors in Tome of Battle which, I might add, is also highly controversial among 3e fans).

But, that's the problem though. Combat Superiority dice are AEDU mechanics with a new coat of paint. At no point in your fighter's existence can he ever, regardless of anything, ever hit something as hard as he can and trip it. It is not possible under the mechanics as they are now.

Heck, his hardest blow can never, ever, knock something off its feet. How's that for dissociated?

But, because it's not from 4e, people will do any amounts of mental gymnastics to make the mechanics acceptable. HP? AC? Healing? Doesn't matter. So long as it's not from 4e, we'll do anything we can to put that "patina of simulation" over it, to use CJ's term. It's perfectly acceptable for a character to go from 6 seconds away from death to full hit points in THREE DAYS under 3e rules, but one day? Oh hell no, that's dissociated.

And this thread is nicely highlighting that. People have internalized their dislike of 4e to the point where they cannot even separate out the differences anymore. It's no different than any other lame, vague justification that anyone uses to dislike an edition.

Can you post hoc spackle over a justification for Combat Superiority dice? Of course you can. But, my question remains. If you can do that here, why is it impossible to do elsewhere? AEDU is too dissociated? Ok, is it the entire system or just the E/D part? If that's it, then there's Essentials classes right there that fit with everything you want.

 

[LostSoul]

But, that's the problem though. Combat Superiority dice are AEDU mechanics with a new coat of paint. At no point in your fighter's existence can he ever, regardless of anything, ever hit something as hard as he can and trip it. It is not possible under the mechanics as they are now.

Heck, his hardest blow can never, ever, knock something off its feet. How's that for dissociated?

Elements of CS dice may be dissociated, but I don't think Trip is. When you spend CS dice to Trip, your guy is trying to trip his target - that's the connection to the game world. It's abstract because we don't know (or care - that is, it's not important to resolution) how he's doing the tripping.

It's nonsensical for the reasons you give, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a pre-packaged connection to the game world.

 

[billd91]

But, that's the problem though. Combat Superiority dice are AEDU mechanics with a new coat of paint.

I really can't agree with that assessment at all. The CS dice throttle how much a PC can do at one time but don't prevent him from trying a move multiple times (successfully). AEDU does prevent it. That's a key difference.

Heck, his hardest blow can never, ever, knock something off its feet. How's that for dissociated?

At 5th level, I can exceed the normal damage a weapon does and knock them down. That seems pretty good to me. Why exactly is this dissociated? I can choose to try for a knockdown each and every round if I want and may succeed each time if my results are good enough. That's not dissociated. Are you saying that because I can't expend all of my CS dice on both damage and one on knockdown it's dissociated? I don't think I really agree with that. Some of my effort in knockdown has to go toward hitting the target right so that I do knock him down even if I don't outright kill or KO him. By comparison, there may be alternate ways to do extra damage to a target without increasing my chances of knocking him off his feet. The trade off is abstract but I don't think it's particularly dissociative.

It's perfectly acceptable for a character to go from 6 seconds away from death to full hit points in THREE DAYS under 3e rules, but one day? Oh hell no, that's dissociated.

My problem with the overnight healing is I find it changes the game for the worse. It removes an important decision point for the players - whether or not to withdraw from the encounter zone completely to recover. I think the game's much better and has more texture when it has a recovery time of more than one long rest.

AEDU is too dissociated? Ok, is it the entire system or just the E/D part? If that's it, then there's Essentials classes right there that fit with everything you want.

I'd say it's also the U. I don't really see why some of those utilities are encounter/daily other than to for metagame reasons. Why can my rogue only tumble once an encounter? Game balance BS as far as I'm concerned.
As far as Essentials go, too little too late. 4e had already lost me for good.

 

[Hussar]

Elements of CS dice may be dissociated, but I don't think Trip is. When you spend CS dice to Trip, your guy is trying to trip his target - that's the connection to the game world. It's abstract because we don't know (or care - that is, it's not important to resolution) how he's doing the tripping.

It's nonsensical for the reasons you give, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a pre-packaged connection to the game world.

But, that's not the dissociated part. Why is it, when I trip someone, I can ONLY trip one person per round, no matter what? AND, if I trip someone, I can never, ever hit someone as hard as I possibly can. Until six seconds later, when I can.

The only difference is the refresh rate.

I really can't agree with that assessment at all. The CS dice throttle how much a PC can do at one time but don't prevent him from trying a move multiple times (successfully). AEDU does prevent it. That's a key difference.

It certainly does prevent him from trying a move multiple times. You cannot, ever, hit someone as hard as you can AND trip someone in the same round. No matter what.

At 5th level, I can exceed the normal damage a weapon does and knock them down. That seems pretty good to me. Why exactly is this dissociated? I can choose to try for a knockdown each and every round if I want and may succeed each time if my results are good enough. That's not dissociated. Are you saying that because I can't expend all of my CS dice on both damage and one on knockdown it's dissociated? I don't think I really agree with that. Some of my effort in knockdown has to go toward hitting the target right so that I do knock him down even if I don't outright kill or KO him. By comparison, there may be alternate ways to do extra damage to a target without increasing my chances of knocking him off his feet. The trade off is abstract but I don't think it's particularly dissociative.

Nice way to change the scenario. My point is, no matter how many CS dice you have, you cannot spend them on damage and tripping. Why not? Why can I only trip someone if I hold back on attacking him.

Note, I will only be attacking one target here. There's no provision at the moment, for me to gain additional actions. So, no matter what, I cannot hit someone as hard as I can and knock them off their feet. Doesn't matter if I'm 1st level or 20th.

But, like I said, we'll do all sorts of mental gymnastics to show how anything non-4e is easily associated. I mean, the same argument you give here applies EQUALLY to AEDU attacks.

My problem with the overnight healing is I find it changes the game for the worse. It removes an important decision point for the players - whether or not to withdraw from the encounter zone completely to recover. I think the game's much better and has more texture when it has a recovery time of more than one long rest.

Yup, tap dancing. I mean, it's been shown how many times how ridiculously easy this is to adjust. Heck, Next has the rules BAKED RIGHT IN. Is that all 4e required? A paragraph saying, "Hey if you want a slower healing rate, don't give them full HP after a full rest, just give them X healing surges back"? Really? Yet, 5e gets the pass and 4e doesn't.

I'd say it's also the U. I don't really see why some of those utilities are encounter/daily other than to for metagame reasons. Why can my rogue only tumble once an encounter? Game balance BS as far as I'm concerned.
As far as Essentials go, too little too late. 4e had already lost me for good.

So, fans complain about a missing mechanic, the developers give them EXACTLY what they want, but, screw them? So, why bother in the first place? I mean, we're talking what, two years? Maybe? From the time 4e is released until Essentials?

Why on earth would any game company court you then? They fixed the problem. They should you exactly how, within the context of the AEDU system, you can create characters that fit perfectly with your playstyle. Never mind that you could simply have done it yourself, the same way that we did every other edition of D&D.

So what happens if Next isn't precisely what you want? You spend the next four or five years bitching and moaning about how 5e isn't really the right game and if they'd just listen to you, they'd get you back as a customer?