D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[iserith]

It's not arbitrary that you could succeed at a cost (although whether or not that option actually comes up does seem to be entirely arbitrary). I don't think that's the real objection here, though. The part that seems to be in contention is the arbitrary selection as to the nature of the setback.

If you barely miss your attack, you could just miss, or you could hit and die in return, or you could hit and be disarmed or knocked prone, or you could hit but you break your potion, or you could hit and accidentally trip an ally. There's just no sense of causality between the action and the result of that action, so the outcome seems arbitrary. Especially if you "just attack" the orc, there's no way to reasonably line up any of those outcomes to correspond to such an abstract action.

A way that you could do it, and not seem quite as arbitrary, would be to ask the player to describe the attack in more detail. If the player describes a running leap at the orc, then a setback could be that you fall prone, and it wouldn't seem arbitrary since it's following from the narrative. Being disarmed would follow more naturally if you try to lunge past the orc's shield.

While nature of the setback could be arbitrary, I don't see that as a necessary outcome of the approach. At the very least, a DM is basing it on what makes sense in the context of the fictional situation. In the case of the example, the fighter and orc lock weapons and fight each other off - the fighter gets damage on a miss, the orc gets an attack as a reaction which may or may not hit. Other things might make more or less sense, but that's good enough even if it mathematically it's a raw deal for the fighter. (Though there is some dispute as to this, it seems.) There is also some causality there. Could it be better? Sure. But the broader point is that the approach isn't necessarily arbitrary.

 

[iserith]

Minor point of contention - characters are either player characters, or non-player characters. That's what the "C" in NPC stands for. I note you're trying to argue semantics, but disagree in RAW, RAI, and RAF (rules as fun). Honestly, its the NPC's that need the boost more anyways.

I know what the "C" stands for in "NPC," but in all the context I have seen "character" used, it has referred to the player characters. I am not arguing semantics here. I'm just saying it appears that there is no particular obligation mandated by the rules that the DM apply the rules to monsters and characters in the same way, at least in this case, if not others.

If someone can point out where "characters" most definitely refers to monsters as well as player characters in context, then I'll change my tune. I think there is a pretty big impetus for some to really want that to be the case based on how they want the game to be, but perhaps it's simply not the case at all. I don't have any skin in the game either way.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I know what the "C" stands for in "NPC," but in all the context I have seen "character" used, it has referred to the player characters. I am not arguing semantics here. I'm just saying it appears that there is no particular obligation mandated by the rules that the DM apply the rules to monsters and characters in the same way, at least in this case, if not others.

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that an NPC would follow different rules than a PC, for things like climbing a wall or sneaking around? It seems clear to me that, whenever they aren't explicitly called out as such, NPCs should follow all of the same rules as PCs; otherwise, the rules would state that.

 

[iserith]

Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that an NPC would follow different rules than a PC, for things like climbing a wall or sneaking around? It seems clear to me that, whenever they aren't explicitly called out as such, NPCs should follow all of the same rules as PCs; otherwise, the rules would state that.

Can you show me anywhere in the rules where "character(s)" definitively refers to anyone but the player characters? I'd honestly like to know if there is a section like that.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I for one believe that rules consistency and transparency are crucial between DM and players. Nothing gets my goat like a DM who suddenly starts Rule 0'ing everything in sight because 'that rule doesn't make sense'. DM fiat is an important tool but it is also one that is all to often abused because a DM has backed themselves into a corner and doesn't realize, hey, that's okay.

 

[iserith]

I for one believe that rules consistency and transparency are crucial between DM and players. Nothing gets my goat like a DM who suddenly starts Rule 0'ing everything in sight because 'that rule doesn't make sense'. DM fiat is an important tool but it is also one that is all to often abused because a DM has backed themselves into a corner and doesn't realize, hey, that's okay.

Yeah, I agree that consistency and transparency is important. But nobody here in this thread is talking about "Rule 0'ing everything in sight" even a little bit. There is talk of applying a particular resolution method from the DMG, however.

 

[Uchawi]

If everyone at your game is fine with things that way and still having a good time then go for it. In a game played for fun, everything is alright until it stops becoming fun. Tweaking the rules to suit individual tastes is exactly what the designers had in mind.

That is a slippery slope, because each person may have a different threshold of fun at the expense of the rules. Just realize the consequences when someone starts to get annoyed.

 

[sidonunspa]

It is opening Pandora's box, because if you have an effect based on a marginal miss, then the same would apply to a save or skill roll. Just watch the wizard blow a cork, when the big bad boss misses the save by only a few points, and the damage is reduced, or the effect is diminished. All I can say is look at the changes in regards to how they affect every player at the table, including what the DM wants to do with NPCs or monsters.

maybe stop playing with an adversarial GM and have fun game?

3.X created a hell of a us vs. the gm mentality I glad that D&D 5e is attempting to move away from

 

[sidonunspa]

That is a slippery slope, because each person may have a different threshold of fun at the expense of the rules. Just realize the consequences when someone starts to get annoyed.

everything is a slippery slope because strict hindrance to the rules may stifle a creative players play style... "sorry, nothing in the rules about running around the giant and dodging his attacks while you rap his legs up with 50' of rope... you can't do it"

 

[Unwise]

Basically no, I would not like to play in the style of the OPs example. At least in D&D. It becomes a game of simple imagination and removed what little tactical elements the game still holds on to.

If I want to do that I will play Edge of the Empire, where the narration is as important as the rolls. I thoroughly enjoy that in a game built to support it.