D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[iserith]

While the DM is within their rights to do this, it is not possibly the best fit for D&D. Often mentioned as part of the conventional wisdom in "how to DM" articles is "being arbitrary or inconsistent breeds discontent". If this was an isolated happening just to shake things up, its not too bad. If there's no rhyme or reason to when and where this is happening then it will get frustrating for players very quickly. If it the up-front house rule that things work this way (with or without the PC having a choice) then it could be fine.

tl;dr: Being arbitrary or inconsistent breeds discontent. Meh as a random ruling, workable as a house rule.

Is it really arbitrary though? It's based on a method that exists in the game system which is also supported by "How to Play," and reasonably fits the context of the fiction. I don't believe it is based on random choice or personal whim. Thus I think it fails the test of being considered arbitrary. There is also nothing in the example that suggests the DM is being inconsistent - this could be how the DM normally rules.

Of course, if it's not one's cup of tea, that's fine. I just don't think it could be said to be arbitrary or inconsistent.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I'm not sure what's even going on in the description, game mechanics wise. But if the orc had a readied action or is a Battle Master with riposte or something, then it's fine.

 

[iserith]

I'm not sure what's even going on in the description, game mechanics wise. But if the orc had a readied action or is a Battle Master with riposte or something, then it's fine.

Mechanics-wise: Fighter wins initiative and attacks. The attack roll is a miss. DM rules "Success at a Cost" (DMG, pg. 242) - fighter can do weapon dice damage, but takes an attack from the orc using the orc's reaction. Orc's turn is up next.

The orc having a PC class or a readied action is not mentioned in the example. Does this make it fine or not fine in your view?

 

[Schmoe]

Not a fan, at all. First, the player had no input into the result, it was complete DM fiat with no clear understanding of why it diverged from the rules. As someone else mentioned, if this had been presented as an option for the player, that would have been different.

Second, there is no way to set expectations on what the results of the actions are. If I want to get a counterattck as reaction, do I just need to state, "I'm raising my weapon in defense?" Why did the orc get a reaction? How can I ensure I always do partial damage even if I miss? This type of ruling introduces too many questions. Unless you are prepared to define the answers and use them consistently, I would avoid those rulings.

 

[neobolts]

Is it really arbitrary though? It's based on a method that exists in the game system which is also supported by "How to Play," and reasonably fits the context of the fiction. I don't believe it is based on random choice or personal whim. Thus I think it fails the test of being considered arbitrary. There is also nothing in the example that suggests the DM is being inconsistent - this could be how the DM normally rules.

Of course, if it's not one's cup of tea, that's fine. I just don't think it could be said to be arbitrary or inconsistent.

The table ruling is certainly within the rules...and the example you gave is not particularly arbitrary. The point I was (somewhat poorly) trying to make was that this sort of example can be a "slippery slope" if used frequently and inconsistently.

In your example, what inspired the DM to make the change? Were they disatisfied with the standard mechanics, looking to spice up a memorable fight, or something else?

 

[iserith]

In your example, what inspired the DM to make the change? Were they disatisfied with the standard mechanics, looking to spice up a memorable fight, or something else?

Could be either of those. Or that he or she just read page 242 of the DMG and decided to give "Success at a Cost" a try.

Interestingly, in that section on Resolution and Consequences, it says, "As a DM, you have a variety of flourishes and approaches you can take when adjudicating success and failure to make things a little less black-and-white." It seems like many objections to the example in this thread come down to not wanting things less "black-and-white." Another objection seems to be that the rules should treat characters and monsters the same way, when that's just not the case with at least this particular approach (and other bits of the rules, I'm sure).

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Wouldn't bother me as long as the DM was consistent and fair. If this "miss by 2; deal damage, but open yourself up to a Reaction attack" was applied consistently and fairly, no problem. Where I'd draw the line is if the next part of the battle "I" (the fighter) had AC 16 and the orc rolled a 14...and then I don't get have a Reaction attack. That isn't consistent, and it's not fair.

I don't care how a DM runs his game, as long as he/she is consistent and fair with rulings, all based on a nice solid foundation of Neutrality. I don't want a DM to favor "The Story" over my (or the other players) actions that guide the story a different way, nor do I want NPC's or monsters to suddenly become immune to "anything the PC's do" just so that they can advance some pre-concieved plot. Combat is no different. If the damage-on-a-miss vs. Reaction is only on one side of the screen...that's a huge problem. If it serves suddenly to 'help' the story towards one direction...that's a problem. If it is used just to mess with a particular character...that's a problem.

And before anyone starts; No, I wouldn't care if he "sprung this on us" during the game. As long as from that point on he is consistent and fair, it's all good.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Paraxis]

For me success with a cost is fine for exploration and social stuff, most skill checks. For combat I want black and white, tactical small group combat. That is why I use a grid for example. Futzing around with combat drives me a little crazy, one of the many reasons I dislike critical fumble house rules so much.

 

[billd91]

Hiya.

Wouldn't bother me as long as the DM was consistent and fair. If this "miss by 2; deal damage, but open yourself up to a Reaction attack" was applied consistently and fairly, no problem. Where I'd draw the line is if the next part of the battle "I" (the fighter) had AC 16 and the orc rolled a 14...and then I don't get have a Reaction attack. That isn't consistent, and it's not fair.

I don't care how a DM runs his game, as long as he/she is consistent and fair with rulings, all based on a nice solid foundation of Neutrality. I don't want a DM to favor "The Story" over my (or the other players) actions that guide the story a different way, nor do I want NPC's or monsters to suddenly become immune to "anything the PC's do" just so that they can advance some pre-concieved plot. Combat is no different. If the damage-on-a-miss vs. Reaction is only on one side of the screen...that's a huge problem. If it serves suddenly to 'help' the story towards one direction...that's a problem. If it is used just to mess with a particular character...that's a problem.

And before anyone starts; No, I wouldn't care if he "sprung this on us" during the game. As long as from that point on he is consistent and fair, it's all good.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Consistency is a key factor here. But I think I'd prefer some indication that the game was going to move in this direction. If it were sprung on me without any sort of warning, I'd be very concerned about future consistency. Setting our expectations before using it helps build our trust that this was a thought out change and not just a whim.

 

[Kikuras]

Could be either of those. Or that he or she just read page 242 of the DMG and decided to give "Success at a Cost" a try.

Interestingly, in that section on Resolution and Consequences, it says, "As a DM, you have a variety of flourishes and approaches you can take when adjudicating success and failure to make things a little less black-and-white." It seems like many objections to the example in this thread come down to not wanting things less "black-and-white." Another objection seems to be that the rules should treat characters and monsters the same way, when that's just not the case with at least this particular approach (and other bits of the rules, I'm sure).

If you're just going to tell everyone else they are wrong, why did you even ask? It's quite clear you're not looking for input, you're looking for confirmation.

I can tell you that the results are different at level 5 than they are at level 1. At level 1, if my DM decides to play with rules only he knows about, and my character dies, I would be annoyed and frustrated. At level 5, it's only a little extra damage, so it ends up being more fun than folly.