D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't agree. What you're saying would be true if there was no way for the fiction to support the idea that one group of gnolls actively stopped outside the aura. Why can't they? It is a clearly harmful affect and they recognize that and stop.

You're misunderstanding pemerton. He's saying you have to derive the fiction from the mechanics, not vice versa, because there's one fiction that the mechanics don't support. You're actually agreeing with his point here.

Upthread, I've proposed a mechanic that would support pemerton's desired fiction: when you do a multiround action declaration through hazards that inflict damage once per round, you take only the minimum amount of damage. I.e. the same number of rounds of damage you would take from stopping in the optimal place, but in this case the DM computes it for you. In this specific example that means the gnolls would take damage on the first round, when they Dashed into the aura, and not on the second when they finally closed and made their attack. In contrast, if they Dashed in and then declared an attack, they would take two full rounds of damage as usual because then they are halting inside the aura to decide on their next action. Now the mechanics supports both fictions side-by-side.

That's a mechanical change driven by fiction: one could argue that the fiction is driving the mechanics. IMO though, game design isn't a dichotomy; you choose mechanics that support all the fictions which you, as game designer, find aesthetically pleasing. There are always certain fictions that a given set of mechanics don't support, and that's okay. You can't play Nine Princes In Amber or The Belgariad or The Wheel of Time with 5E mechanics, no way, no how, and that's all right.

 

[OB1]

By that last occurrence of "change", do you mean change by WotC or change by some hypothetical D&Der who doesn't like the way Spirit Guardians works? If the former, I think I agree. If the latter, I don't agree - if someone doesn't like the fiction that SG - or some other mechanic - generates, then absolutely they should change that mechanic.

I did mean the former, and you would be right to criticize my post for being vague as my intent was to be clear

I don't agree with this.

First, I don't share your theory of criticism in general. Sometimes a creator's intention is not the most important thing about their work. (Eg the reason many people admire the great cathedrals of Europe, as works of architecture that are worth protecting, is quite divorced from the intent of their architects and buiilders.) And sometimes creators' intentions are flawed, and are worth identifying as such. (Eg in the sphere of RPGing, Ggygax's intent seems to have been to balance MUs vs fighters over a campaign in which it is assumed that even experienced players don't begin their PCs much above 3rd level. That design intention seems open to criticism, if it does not mesh well with the way the intended audience of the game are actually going to play the game.)

Second, not everyone who wants to change something about the game is thereby disagreeing with WotC's intent. Maybe they think the game, in actual accomplishment, falls short of its ambitions. If a few feats, at someone's table, undermine the game's realisation of its intent, then that person absolutely has a reason to fix those feats. If enough people have that problem, then WotC has a (commercial) reason to fix them. WotC seems to take that view of the ranger - enough people are dissatisfied that WotC think it is worth their while coming up with a verion that the players of the game will be more receptive of as satisfyig the design intentions of the game.

So I actually agree with most of what you are saying here, which leads me to believe that I did a poor job in communicating what I meant about criticism and author intent so I'll try again. Most importantly, please don't take anything I'm saying here as an argument to not make changes at your table. I absolutely believe that tables should make any and all changes that they want to ensure that they are meeting the goals of play.

The reason that Intent is central to useful criticism, is that it allows us to look beyond "like" or "dislike" of something, an opinion, and instead focus on the quality of the author's craft. By doing so, we gain understanding on why certain techniques do or do not work to accomplish the intended result and other authors can then learn from those techniques to better craft their works. In the case of Gygax's intent, listed above, understanding how he accomplished his intent allows other RPG makers who desire a different outcome to learn from what he did and change it to meet their vision. If instead, you simply say that Gygax "made a mistake" or "didn't know what he was doing" or "was a big fat idiot" you can miss valuable insights into game design that may better inform your decisions.

In the case of the Ranger, we see a case of competing intents by WotC, between the type of experience they are trying to create and the desire to have a popular product that people like and want to buy. While the Ranger succeeded at meeting the design goals, it failed at providing a satisfying experience for a majority (or at least a loud minority) of players. Impressively, it appears that WotC was able to create a more acceptable Ranger without succumbing to power creep, which most of the home brewed solutions to the Ranger did.

Which brings me back to the point of this thread. To me, these boards are a place to come to be inspired by other ideas or to ask for specific advice about a specific problem I'm having in my game. I know, for example, that I'll be coming here for advice when my players are getting close to their Tier III BBEG, a Litch who rides a Dracolitch and is trying to begin a time of endless darkness upon the world, to try and make this mission one that the players will be talking about for years. I want to tap into the vast wealth of experience and knowledge on these boards to make it more likely that my intent will be realized.

But what I see from the Capn' is a desire to get WotC to change the game because it doesn't fit his personal taste. While this is fine in and of itself, the danger is that he is using poorly designed criticism to show why WotC needs to change things, and that doesn't help anyone. Purposefully designing an encounter to show how a rule is "broken" in an extreme edge case doesn't help people to better understand the game and how to run in to maximize the enjoyment at their table. Bad arguments, and specifically ones made on the back of a complaints instead of a criticism, can lead to bad decisions in future designs. It can also lead to the rejection of good advice because your real concern isn't fixing your game, but trying to "fix" D&D.

So I will continue to read and enjoy this thread on making melee more competitive, because there are several posters who have gotten me to think more deeply about encounter design and how to challenge my players in an enjoyable way, to better reach the goal of play that WotC so elegantly put at the start of the PHB, to create an exciting story about bold adventurers facing deadly perils.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You're misunderstanding pemerton. He's saying you have to derive the fiction from the mechanics, not vice versa, because there's one fiction that the mechanics don't support. You're actually agreeing with his point here.

I don't think I'm agreeing with him here. To me, there's a perfectly plausible fiction that the mechanics will support.

I feel he's insisting on one interpretation of the fiction. To him, the gnolls that used their dash action spent less time in the aura than the other group of gnolls. I disagree with that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't think I'm agreeing with him here. To me, there's a perfectly plausible fiction that the mechanics will support.

I feel he's insisting on one interpretation of the fiction. To him, the gnolls that used their dash action spent less time in the aura than the other group of gnolls. I disagree with that.

@pemerton, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the existence of "a" fiction consistent with the mechanics disproves your point. I believe you were pointing out that only certain fictions are consistent with the mechanics; therefore, that the mechanics are driving the fiction.

@hawkeyefan, I believe you also believe that only certain fictions are consistent with the mechanics. It is in this sense that I believe you and pemerton are in agreement. I think you have different preferences for the fiction you would like, but you both agree that the fiction pemerton would like isn't supported by the mechanics.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@pemerton, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the existence of "a" fiction consistent with the mechanics disproves your point. I believe you were pointing out that only certain fictions are consistent with the mechanics; therefore, that the mechanics are driving the fiction.

@hawkeyefan, I believe you also believe that only certain fictions are consistent with the mechanics. It is in this sense that I believe you and pemerton are in agreement. I think you have different preferences for the fiction you would like, but you both agree that the fiction pemerton would like isn't supported by the mechanics.

I suppose in that sense, yes. However, I don't actually agree with his fictional interpretation.....so it isn't one I would ever consider myself. So I suppose that's where the distinction comes in. I just don't see it the way he does.

But I wouldn't tell someone that the make believe that they like isn't correct, know what I mean?

 

[pemerton]

IWhat you're saying would be true if there was no way for the fiction to support the idea that one group of gnolls actively stopped outside the aura. Why can't they? It is a clearly harmful affect and they recognize that and stop.

You seem to have missed my point.

First, in what sense have the A gnolls stopped? I don't think they've stopped at all - they walk up to the aura cautiously (30' move in 6 seconds) then walk through it and attack (30' > 15' move, attack) - they only seem to have stopped because their turn comes to an end.

But let's suppose that they have stopped. Why should this help them? In the real world, if you had to cross a dangerous aura, it would seem better to do so quickly: charge through and attack, rather than move cautioiusy through and attack. But my A gnolls, who do the latter, fare better than my B gnolls, who do the former.

Note that, in 3E or 4e, my B gnolls would not do any worse than my A gnolls, because they could use the charge action - yet another case of mechanics shaping the fiction.

EDIT: I've just read the back-and-forth between you (Hawkeyefan) and [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]. Hemlock is correct. The fact that one can construct a fiction that fits the mechanics - the B gnolls dash into the aura then stand around for a few seconds getting cut down by sprits while they wonder what to do next - doesn't affect my point, which is that the turn-by-turn resolution is driving the fiction, and is making other fictions - ones which (as Hemlock has said) I prefer and find more plausible - impossible to realise.

As I said, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a thing. Given that, in another thread, you told me that you didn't want the mechanics to dictate the fiction but rather the reverse, I'm a bit surprised that on this point you're so casual about the way that the "stop motion" resolution system dictates the outcome. (Or even the lack of a charge action, for that matter - if such an action existed, then at least some of the gnolls who, in [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s scenario, suffered two rounds worth of damage, might have suffered only one.)

EDIT 2:

I don't actually agree with his fictional interpretation.....so it isn't one I would ever consider myself. So I suppose that's where the distinction comes in.

Just to be clear - you can't envisage the gnolls, 45' from the cleric, thinking to themselves "That aura looks dangerous, so we'll run through it as fast as we can and cut the defiler down!"? That's all that my B gnolls are doing. It's just that, because the completely artificial round break happens to fall before the final resolution of their movement, and the resolution of their attack, they take two lots of damage.

If you made the round 12 seconds rather than 6, so that movement rates doubled, then my B gnolls could dash the 45' and attack in the same round, and hence would take the damage only once (just like the A gnolls, who move cautiously up to the aura, then move cautiously through it and attack).

I'm a bit puzzled if you really can't see my point - which is that the rules make the suffering of aura damage depend not solely upon an fictional state of affairs but also upon a purely mechanical construct, namely, "starting one's turn". Starting your turn isn't an event that happens in the fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You seem to have missed my point.

First, in what sense have the A gnolls stopped? I don't think they've stopped at all - they walk up to the aura cautiously (30' move in 6 seconds) then walk through it and attack (30' > 15' move, attack) - they only seem to have stopped because their turn comes to an end.

Well this is what is making it difficult. We are both discussing how we would handle this. In that sense, the gnolls have physically stopped because I decided that was a reasonable action for them as thinking beings. The ones that didn't stop have rushed right in, focusing so much on their speed to get to that point (dashing) that they are unable to act upon reaching their destination.

The gnolls that have stopped do not then move cautiously forward when they do decide to enter the aura....they move as quickly as they can.

You've chosen to interpret things to get the outcome you are looking for here. I disagree with that interpretation.

But let's suppose that they have stopped. Why should this help them? In the real world, if you had to cross a dangerous aura, it would seem better to do so quickly: charge through and attack, rather than move cautioiusy through and attack. But my A gnolls, who do the latter, fare better than my B gnolls, who do the former.

It helped because they are not exposed to the aura as long as their companions.

 

[pemerton]

The reason that Intent is central to useful criticism, is that it allows us to look beyond "like" or "dislike" of something, an opinion, and instead focus on the quality of the author's craft.

This is I think moslty tangential to the thread, so I won't say a lot, other than - part of doing a craft well can be right intention. So creative/authorial intentions are (in my view) legitimate objects of criticism. And I think this can be seen in serious criticism (whether of visual art, performance, literature, film or music) - critics will discuss not only execution, but also goals.

What the difference is between criticising a creator's intention, and just saying "I didn't like that", is something that I'll leave for another day.

To me, these boards are a place to come to be inspired by other ideas or to ask for specific advice about a specific problem I'm having in my game.

<snip>

But what I see from the Capn' is a desire to get WotC to change the game because it doesn't fit his personal taste. While this is fine in and of itself, the danger is that he is using poorly designed criticism to show why WotC needs to change things, and that doesn't help anyone. Purposefully designing an encounter to show how a rule is "broken" in an extreme edge case doesn't help people to better understand the game and how to run in to maximize the enjoyment at their table.

I don't think there is any danger here. WotC doesn't make design decisions based on individual ENworld threads.

The real value of this thread is in identifying rules changes and rules interpretations that can support different sorts of encounters (and hence different sorts of fiction). [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has contributed to that. And I don't think the gnoll encounter is "purposefully designing an encounter to show how a rule is 'broken'". As best I can tell, it was purposefully designing an encounter to find out how one rule (mobs) works, and then discovering that anothe rule (aura/zone damage) makes the encounter that was designed unviable. And the response is (in my view) perfectly reasonable: increase the hp of the monsters so as to somewhat nerf the auto-damage.

(The 4e era was full of similar discussions, because of the interaction in that system between auto-damage and minions.)

 

[pemerton]

The ones that didn't stop have rushed right in, focusing so much on their speed to get to that point (dashing) that they are unable to act upon reaching their destination.

No. This is the crux. They act straight away, and attack the cleric. The fact that a round break happens between the resolution of their dash and the making of their attack is completely a mechanical artifice.

Look at it another way: suppose that you run an encounter where the PCs have to fight some baddies in the middle of a stadium, while some sprinters run the 400 meter (approx 1300') dash around the perimeter.

In the real world, that sprint wil take 45 seconds to a minute+, depending on quality of runners etc. In the game, a rogue can run at 90' per 6 seconds (dash+bonus dash) or 15' per second, meaning it will take over a minute to run the race. However exactly we set the time, it's clearly multiple rounds - somewhere between 8 and 10+

Now suppose we're resolving this situation. Each character takes his/her turn - including the sprinters, as we might want to know which of them inadvertently gets caught in AoEs etc - and that is resolved. In the course of this, the sprinters will move their speeds, then "pause" as other turns are taken. But do we really suppose that, in the fiction, each sprinter stops after 6 seconds of running and then starts again? To me, that would be absurd. The illusion of stop/start is just than - an illusion. It is a byproduct of turn-by-turn intitiative/resolution. In the fiction the sprinters don't stop - they just keep running.

As for the sprinters, so for B gnolls. They don't stop after dashing through the aura and before attacking the cleric. In the ficiton, it's continuous action. It is only the mechanical turn structure - which includes the completely artificial notion of starting your turn - that (i) creates an illusion of discontinuity, and (ii) results in the B gnolls taking an extra helping of damage.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure anyone is still assuming that. Can you think of any names? CapnZapp seems to have quietly walked away from that argument, and no one else was proponing mob ineffectiveness in the first place.

Isn't that what this conclusion is based on... Emphasis mine.

The real value of this thread is in identifying rules changes and rules interpretations that can support different sorts of encounters (and hence different sorts of fiction). [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has contributed to that. And I don't think the gnoll encounter is "purposefully designing an encounter to show how a rule is 'broken'". As best I can tell, it was purposefully designing an encounter to find out how one rule (mobs) works, and then discovering that anothe rule (aura/zone damage) makes the encounter that was designed unviable. And the response is (in my view) perfectly reasonable: increase the hp of the monsters so as to somewhat nerf the auto-damage.