D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[pemerton]

Let's say you want to swing from a chandelier and chop somebody's head off. You don't have to ask the DM's permission to do this. You might have to ask the DM what skill & DC to use to do the swinging, and maybe because the chandelier is rather high, and the target is rather far off, he sets the DC higher than you would like, but I would hope the DM wouldn't just say "No, you can't do that." He (or she!) would say, "Ok, let's see either an Athletics or Acrobatics roll with DC 20."

As for the chopping off of the head, make an Attack roll. If you do enough damage to kill the target you should be free to narrate that as a clean head shot.

Now, your DM may choose to "not allow" either of those things. But if so, that's your DM, not the edition.

Note how concrete the rules are for chopping off a head, though: the player has an attack bonus, and a damage range; and the GM's notes tell him/her the AC of the creature, and how many hp the NPC/monster has; and the rules tell us that when the hp drop to zero, the creature is dead.

Now note how loose the rules for swinging on a chandelier are: there is nothing analogous to the AC, the hit points, or the damage roll. Knowing that I have (say) +6 to DEX (Acrobatics) tells me relatively little about whether or not I'll be able to perform the chandelier manoeuvre. Whereas knowing I have (say) +7 to hit with damage of 1d8+5, and can attack twice a round, tells me quite a bit about whether or not I'll be able to best a hoblgoblin in melee.

If the GM only sets the AC and hp of the creature after I declare my attack, then the difference between the two cases evaporates. That's why we get so many fudging threads, which - in the context of D&D - are focused almost entirely on combat. This combat/non-combat divide is an artefact of D&D, not of RPGing in general.

Even within the context of D&D, there is no reason why a character can't have an ability like "Dramatic Swing: if there is some appropriate furniture or similar about - a rope, a chandelier, a ladder, etc - then your PC can use it to move as normal without having to be on the ground. You regain this ability after a short rest, or by using an action to adjust/reposition the furniture in question." 4e PCs tended to have these sorts of abilities (especially rogue and ranger utility powers, and skill powers). In comparison, I think 5e PCs have fewer of them.

 

[Blue]

That is because you're asking the wrong question. The issue isn't "can I do this?", but instead "I can do this!". Specifically, the lack of "I can do this!" in 5E.

As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said above, some of that is due to the lack of system transparency in 5E. In 3E and 4E the resolution system and DCs for success were detailed and knowable by the player to a large extent, so you had a pretty decent idea what you could do and how it would turn out. The other side would be that 3E and 4E gave out many more powers, abilities, fears and spells that gave you permission in advance to do X.

Sorry, I call bull. "Ruling not rules" doesn't affect 95% of combat. Most of the time there doesn't need to be any rulings, everything is clearly spelled out in the rules. That's why I have so much trouble understanding your point and are looking for examples.

So for me to understand, it IS the right question. What do you plan on that is outside the normal scope of the rules such that it will need a DM ruling?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That is because you're asking the wrong question. The issue isn't "can I do this?", but instead "I can do this!". Specifically, the lack of "I can do this!" in 5E.

As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said above, some of that is due to the lack of system transparency in 5E. In 3E and 4E the resolution system and DCs for success were detailed and knowable by the player to a large extent, so you had a pretty decent idea what you could do and how it would turn out. The other side would be that 3E and 4E gave out many more powers, abilities, fears and spells that gave you permission in advance to do X.

While in practice I found this to be true, this is not actually true by the rules. See D&D 4e Rules Compendium page 9 where it says the DM can override the results of a check for the good of the story. Further, in the section on skill challenges, it talks about how skill checks should never be a substitute for what the DM thinks is good roleplaying. Further, there is a blurb in one of the books that talks about how the DM can say a power simply doesn't work in a given fictional situation. (I can't recall which book this is, but it's a thing. I've had this discussion before with regard to D&D 4e. Perhaps someone else recalls it.)

This all goes to my point that all editions of D&D give the DM power to make rulings as needed. It's just in some editions, there are more rules to draw upon to make such rulings. (This doesn't mean a DM can invalidate an action declaration, however.)

It bears saying that two of the major cornerstones in terms of DM advice given in the 4E DMG are "just say yes" and "fail forward". Between those and player expectations, there was a barrier against the DM making negative rulings.

 

[Imaro]

Note how concrete the rules are for chopping off a head, though: the player has an attack bonus, and a damage range; and the GM's notes tell him/her the AC of the creature, and how many hp the NPC/monster has; and the rules tell us that when the hp drop to zero, the creature is dead.

Now note how loose the rules for swinging on a chandelier are: there is nothing analogous to the AC, the hit points, or the damage roll. Knowing that I have (say) +6 to DEX (Acrobatics) tells me relatively little about whether or not I'll be able to perform the chandelier manoeuvre. Whereas knowing I have (say) +7 to hit with damage of 1d8+5, and can attack twice a round, tells me quite a bit about whether or not I'll be able to best a hoblgoblin in melee.

If the GM only sets the AC and hp of the creature after I declare my attack, then the difference between the two cases evaporates. That's why we get so many fudging threads, which - in the context of D&D - are focused almost entirely on combat. This combat/non-combat divide is an artefact of D&D, not of RPGing in general.

Even within the context of D&D, there is no reason why a character can't have an ability like "Dramatic Swing: if there is some appropriate furniture or similar about - a rope, a chandelier, a ladder, etc - then your PC can use it to move as normal without having to be on the ground. You regain this ability after a short rest, or by using an action to adjust/reposition the furniture in question." 4e PCs tended to have these sorts of abilities (especially rogue and ranger utility powers, and skill powers). In comparison, I think 5e PCs have fewer of them.

Doesn't this assume you know the AC and hit points of the hobgoblin?? Otherwise it doesn't tell you any of that.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Again, answering on my own account - but I think with at least a degree of sympathy for the OP.

One issue is the ambiguity of the hiding rules - which in many ways are less clear even than the AD&D ones (which are very punitive on thief players, but at least tolerably clear). Two points of contrast can be drawn with 4e: first, 4e's Stealth skill rules are plain clearer; second, a 4e rogue can take various abilities that override the general Stealth rules and just allow the player to stipulate "My character is invisible to those who are looking for him/her!" These abilities tend to be rationed, but can be pulled out at key moments. (A bit like the way, in more traditional D&D, spells are pulled out at key moments when the players want to impose their will on the shared fiction.)

But another issue is that, even if you are hidden, it's not clear what this achieves in terms of impact on the fiction (especially out of combat). There is nothing analogous to the skill challenge mechanic whereby, if you successfully hide in the course of pursuing your goal, then the GM is obliged to credit you with some degree of success towards that goal within the fiction.

That's what I am calling the issue of finality.

Oh, yeah, stealth is actually a good example. I find that one to be way too vague. Makes me not want to play a rogue in Adventurer's League because I'm not sure how the DM will deal with stealth.

I find it interesting how you are tying "player agency" to "impacting the fiction" mechanically, as opposed to just narratively. It's not exactly how I think about player agency, but it's certainly a valid way of thinking about it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Ok, if I'm reading this correctly, what you are saying is essentially that if a player finds an "exploit"...a weird edge case in the rules, or an unanticipated synergy between abilities, or simply the use of an ability in a setting in which it wouldn't logically work...the 4e resolution is to let the player use the exploit, and the 5e resolution is to have the DM say, "Sorry, that's just not going to work in this case."

Is that a fair summary?

Example: I recently sat at a table with a guy who was planning to build his rogue with polearm master so that he'd get Opportunity Attacks when anybody came within range. I pointed out that he only gets his sneak attack damage when using a Finesse weapon, and he replied that his plan was hold a quarterstaff in his offhand (because it's Versatile) and then take the opportunity attack with the rapier in his mainhand. (He was also planning on taking the dual wielding feat to allow non-light weapons, and the plan further involved getting Booming Blade and using Disengage as a bonus action, etc. It was very convoluted.).

Now, the rules for polearm master don't explicitly say that you have to take the opportunity attack with the polearm itself. So it seems that by his strict literalist reading of the rules, his plan would work.

A DM might reasonably respond, "At my table if you get an opportunity attack because of Polearm Master you have to use the polearm itself."

Is that the kind of "loss of player agency" we're talking about here? (I wouldn't call it that, but I'm honestly trying to understand the complaint.)

You're looking at it wrong. The main point isn't about obscure ambiguous exploits, but the abilities themselves. The important part of your example is the Polearm Master feat giving the opportunity attack itself, not exploiting some rules glitch with it. To me, an ideal system would grant a greater variety of abilities like Polearm Master, and a given character would have access to a great deal more abilities like that than the typical 5E character, inside and out of combat.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Note how concrete the rules are for chopping off a head, though: the player has an attack bonus, and a damage range; and the GM's notes tell him/her the AC of the creature, and how many hp the NPC/monster has; and the rules tell us that when the hp drop to zero, the creature is dead.

Now note how loose the rules for swinging on a chandelier are: there is nothing analogous to the AC, the hit points, or the damage roll. Knowing that I have (say) +6 to DEX (Acrobatics) tells me relatively little about whether or not I'll be able to perform the chandelier manoeuvre. Whereas knowing I have (say) +7 to hit with damage of 1d8+5, and can attack twice a round, tells me quite a bit about whether or not I'll be able to best a hoblgoblin in melee.

If the GM only sets the AC and hp of the creature after I declare my attack, then the difference between the two cases evaporates. That's why we get so many fudging threads, which - in the context of D&D - are focused almost entirely on combat. This combat/non-combat divide is an artefact of D&D, not of RPGing in general.

Even within the context of D&D, there is no reason why a character can't have an ability like "Dramatic Swing: if there is some appropriate furniture or similar about - a rope, a chandelier, a ladder, etc - then your PC can use it to move as normal without having to be on the ground. You regain this ability after a short rest, or by using an action to adjust/reposition the furniture in question." 4e PCs tended to have these sorts of abilities (especially rogue and ranger utility powers, and skill powers). In comparison, I think 5e PCs have fewer of them.

Good post, and helps clarify things for me.

Ultimately, though, doesn't it amount to either the same thing, as the DM adjudicates what features are available? Either that or a contentious arms race that spoils the fun for everyone?

"I'll use Dramatic Swing..."
"Sorry, there's nothing to swing from."
"Where's the light source."
"Magical lights set in the ceiling."
"(grumble)Remind me to first ask for a description of the room next time"
"(grumble)Remind me to never embellish any rooms in case some rules lawyer wants to bypass my carefully designed encounter."

 

[Guest 6801328]

You're looking at it wrong. The main point isn't about obscure ambiguous exploits, but the abilities themselves. The important part of your example is the Polearm Master feat giving the opportunity attack itself, not exploiting some rules glitch with it. To me, an ideal system would grant a greater variety of abilities like Polearm Master, and a given character would have access to a great deal more abilities like that than the typical 5E character, inside and out of combat.

Yeah, I get that. Character options. Some folks love 'em.

I am just utterly failing to understand how that translates to "asking for permission", though. Pemerton's posts add a little bit of clarity, but I'm still not seeing anything that looks like a sudden loss of player agency compared to previous editions.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Again, answering on my own account - but I think with at least a degree of sympathy for the OP.

One issue is the ambiguity of the hiding rules - which in many ways are less clear even than the AD&D ones (which are very punitive on thief players, but at least tolerably clear). Two points of contrast can be drawn with 4e: first, 4e's Stealth skill rules are plain clearer; second, a 4e rogue can take various abilities that override the general Stealth rules and just allow the player to stipulate "My character is invisible to those who are looking for him/her!" These abilities tend to be rationed, but can be pulled out at key moments. (A bit like the way, in more traditional D&D, spells are pulled out at key moments when the players want to impose their will on the shared fiction.)

But another issue is that, even if you are hidden, it's not clear what this achieves in terms of impact on the fiction (especially out of combat). There is nothing analogous to the skill challenge mechanic whereby, if you successfully hide in the course of pursuing your goal, then the GM is obliged to credit you with some degree of success towards that goal within the fiction.

That's what I am calling the issue of finality.

Skill challenges simply replaced approaching a scenario organically with throwing enough die rolls at it to be able to say "I win". It was fairly unsatisfying.

The results of successfully hiding are readily apparent. You are not detected. What that means in the overall situation depends on the scenario. It might mean you gain entrance to someplace secretly. It might mean that you get to listen or observe something that other parties are unaware of. " I made 5 die rolls of difficulty X what do I win?" isn't a very satisfying final result of any action.

The actual value of what the outcome may mean isn't for the rules OR the DM to decide. The circumstances of the setting and scenario most often decide this. Your hiding might have a huge impact on the flow of play some times and not in other times. The information you overhear while eavesdropping might be trivial, useful, or save the day awesome. The point is, your success at the action needed to obtain this information has no bearing on the value of said information.

This is simply a natural result of game play being driven organically instead of being parceled out in chunks in some challenge/reward structure.

 

[iserith]

It bears saying that two of the major cornerstones in terms of DM advice given in the 4E DMG are "just say yes" and "fail forward". Between those and player expectations, there was a barrier against the DM making negative rulings.

What is a "negative ruling?"

D&D 5e has fail forward in the form of "success at a cost" or "progress combined with a setback." I don't recall if "just say yes" is suggested in the DMG, but the only real test to see if something can work is if it falls between certain success and certain failure (DMG page 237). If the DM is saying most things are certain failure, then like's like a DM problem (unless the player is just oblivious to the established scene or not playing in good faith).