D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 12/13/13

[Mistwell]

Does anyone else find this a really weird statement? The paternalistic "You've played well", especially when tied to a simplistic combat tactic (rather than assuming a role creatively, or making a dynamic or innovative character) seems fatuous but also a bit insulting.

If you genuinely feel insulted...maybe time for a break? It's obviously not meant to be insulting. Life is too difficult, to go around reading bad intent where there is none.

 

[Kobold Stew]

If you genuinely feel insulted...maybe time for a break? It's obviously not meant to be insulting. Life is too difficult, to go around reading bad intent where there is none.

I'm not reading bad intent at all, as I've said upthread. And I'm not sure I do feel insulted, which is why I asked. The statement does seem weird to me, because it is such a lame example and this is the first time I can think of where something has been called out as especially capable play.

I am actually pleased that it is (or at least seems to be) me mis-appraising tone.

You've answered well.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not reading bad intent at all, as I've said upthread. And I'm not sure I do feel insulted, which is why I asked. The statement does seem weird to me, because it is such a lame example and this is the first time I can think of where something has been called out as especially capable play.

I am actually pleased that it is (or at least seems to be) me mis-appraising tone.

You've answered well.

I think "Try not to hit your ally with the arrow you shot at your enemy" is probably a good idea, regardless of how creative or innovative or dynamic you are.

 

[Dausuul]

Con check for concentration - while I use saving throws, myself , which I find a better "check" mechanic than ability scores, does this imply we have returned to casting times in 5E? That'd be a good thing.

No. He's talking about spells with a duration of "concentration," not concentration while casting.

 

[Libramarian]

Does anyone else find this a really weird statement? The paternalistic "You've played well", especially when tied to a simplistic combat tactic (rather than assuming a role creatively, or making a dynamic or innovative character) seems fatuous but also a bit insulting.

I think his comment there unpacks like this:

He's talking about what they're thinking of doing to penalize firing at range into a melee. They strongly prioritize simplicity and ease of use.
So he says: "Right now if your allies are in the way they can provide cover to the monster. We think that's a sufficient penalty."
Then he imagines someone saying: "But that's not much of a penalty. I could just move over here so the monster is between me and my ally."
Then he says: "Yeah but I like it when there is an opportunity to circumvent a penalty with smart tactical play. So I don't mind that."

Definitely not getting a paternalistic or insulting tone form it, but I think it implies that RT is more tolerant of metagame praise for smart (if basic) tactical play than you are. You seem to think that only creative role-playing is worthy of metagame praise. So you might reasonably be slightly disappointed by his attitude there.

 

[Rune]

Back in the day, if a thief wanted to backstab someone, he'd actually have to sneak around the flank to get behind his foe. Happened all the time. In the narrative of the game. No grid necessary. Worked just fine.

 

[occam]

Flanking: "This isn’t in the core rules of the game since flanking relies far too heavily on a grid to be included by default."

Cover: "If you can maneuver so that the monster is between you and your ally, great!"

Does that read as strangely to anyone else as it does for me? Those seem entirely contradictory to me.

Cheers!
Kinak

I thought the same thing.

As for flanking, I'm fine with that being left out of the core rules. The lack of it has come up as an issue with experienced players when we are using minis and a grid, but making it a basic rule would favor a grid to settle disputes, or as an aid to remember when enemies might get to flank, and I like doing without the grid sometimes.

 

[pemerton]

Flanking: "This isn’t in the core rules of the game since flanking relies far too heavily on a grid to be included by default."

Cover: "If you can maneuver so that the monster is between you and your ally, great!"

Does that read as strangely to anyone else as it does for me? Those seem entirely contradictory to me.

Yes, I had the same thought.

 

[MJS]

Back in the day, if a thief wanted to backstab someone, he'd actually have to sneak around the flank to get behind his foe. Happened all the time. In the narrative of the game. No grid necessary. Worked just fine.

Yeah it seems a bit overthunk and dice-happy.

 

[Klaus]

It's interesting that he cited Flanking as something heavily grid reliant. In my 3e/4e TotM games, flanking (and a host of other combat positioning shenanigans) were covered by the action economy: you can spend a move action when you are in melee to gain it, or to remove yourself from it.

That's easy enough for me to add back in, and I can't say I'll be sad to see questions that rely on drawing imaginary lines get shunted firmly to a tactical module, but I'm a little surprised no one thought of how that might be modeled without doinking around with a grid.

I think the gridless version flanking is there under the "Help" and "Hinder" actions: you have to actively decide to improve an ally's attack.