D&D 5E Has D&D Combat Always Been Slow?

[tetrasodium]

For those who would like benefits from flanking but find that Advantage is too strong, why not use the Facing rules instead? There would be benefits from getting behind a creature to avoid its AC bonus from shields, which is not nothing. At the start and at the end of its turn, a creatures can decide where it is facing.

Add to that the Mark option from the DMG, with the specific addition that a marked creature that moves without disengaging, even when staying within attack range, triggers an AoO.

This would add a little tactic, without too much rules.

the tactical component is like a stool or table. facing & flanking are two legs of the whole thing but everything else is missing. The tactical stuff needs to be written into the rules from the start not grafted on as an after thought after haphazzardly removing it. The hewer's handy haversack being worse than the bag of holding in every way but a higher rarity is because they simply stripped the fact that pre5e it allowed you to grab something from it without provoking an AoO.
The missing component is some form of risk to obtain the beneficial position or it's basically just "optionally you could give players advantage on almost all melee atacks" & doesn't fill the need at all.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

This is mostly for @Neonchameleon ...

"Rulings not Rules". Yes, perhaps I should have said "Rulings over Rules" to be more specific. To me, they both mean the same thing; a ruling is favoured over a rule.

I think the contention we are having is each of us talking about what is "good DM'ing practice", and using our own experience as the basis. For me, none of the things you mention about the player having to "guess" what the DM wants, or "ask and hope" for the DM to allow something, etc., make much sense. It doesn't make sense to me because my experience has always been with a long-term group of people and friends whom I have gamed with for years or decades. So everyone at the table "knows" one another and doesn't have any real contentious hang-ups in regards to play style preference; we are all "on the same page", so to speak. Ergo, when some situation comes up and a Player is thinking about what to do, he/she simply decides what to do based on the years or decades of playing with all of us. For example, PvP is very much disliked by our group as a whole. Because of that, it is usually pretty obvious as to where various rulings and reactions are going to go if a Player starts trying to plot the demise of another Players PC. We all have the 'feeling' of what should/shouldn't be easy to accomplish (via rules/rulings) in order to discourage PvP as a whole. Just substitute other situations and it's the same thing; we all know what "cold" effects have on a person...as we all live in the Yukon Territory way up in northern Canada. So when the rules say "Suffer -1 on all Physical Checks when in 0C to -10C [32F to 14F]"...we all know that's total BS and we will happily ignore it; they 'know' that I'm not going to enforce that unless they are running around naked or just climbed out of the river they swam across.

In short, the 'rules' may say something, but because we all are on the 'same page', any chosen decisions they make, they have a very good idea of exactly how I'm going to choose a Ruling over a Rule.

Now...if you mostly play online with strangers, or at the local game club, or frequently start new groups of players every few months. Ok, THEN I can see the favour of Rulings over Rules being, perhaps, less desirable. Alas...that is no my situation and it's never been my situation...so my bias towards seeing Rulings over Rules as a significant boon was blinding me.

Yes.. Fudge was what I was thinking of. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

I hate the word 'toxic' refering to anything non-chemical. It's a word that has no distinct meaning, that other people can interpret however they want to fit their own desire. So I'm going to re-word your sentence and reply to that re-worded sentence as it will be more specific to what I think you mean when you say 'toxic'...
..
Original: "I just consider the "Rulings not rules" mantra to be toxic and at best a response to poor game design..."
..
Re-Worded: "I just consider the 'Ruleings not Rules' mantra to cause more resentment/dissatisfaction at a table, and at best a response to poor game design..."

To which I would reply: Group familiarity is probably the key issue for such a stance; with strangers or people you don't know very well, I can see it being a bit of a hurdle, initially, but once everyone starts to get a feel for the group and it balances out into something everyone at the table likes...I think 'Rulings not Rules' is far superior to RAW for the sake of RAW. A game designed with rules first, but rules that are meant to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis from the GM is a FAR superior game design than one that has everything so codified, worded, labeled and defined so as to actually hinder a GM making a different ruling over the rule for some unusual case.

For 5e, for example, soooo many people are 'confused' by the term and rules for "Stealth" and "Hidden". I think this is because the people who don't like them don't like the fact that they can't point to the book and say "I did X, succeeded at Y and made my roll for Z; therefore, I am undetectable". When they can't do that, and in stead point to the rules, say that, and the GM replies with "Well, normally, sure, but in THIS case...". That's when the RAW becomes a problem; when it gives Players a false sense of "superiority" (?...is that it...maybe a false sense of "entitlement"?..."authority"?) OVER the GM. I'd say a simple sentence or two saying "...stealth is tricky and the GM will adjudicate the actual success/failure chance based on some simple GUIDLINES, as follows...", and then list some common 'mechanic effects for situations'. When a game makes a blanket statement ("DC 15"), and then provides a chart with modifiers...that's when we run into trouble.

Oh, and I agree. I don't think we are TOO far away from each other now. Just a bit...and likely just due to preference and experiences.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Argyle King]

Off topic, but because I noticed it discussed:

FWIW, "bounded accuracy" as a term used by the design team turned out to mean something very different than what I thought was meant by that during the playtest phase. Whether or not 5E achieves that is, imo, debatable.

Re stealth: I feel as though the rules for stealth have progressively gotten worse, more unclear, and more convoluted over the past few editions -not because there are more/less rules, but because the game uses language in a way which is counterintuitive to what the words being used normally mean.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Bounded-ish.

 

[Oofta]

Off topic, but because I noticed it discussed:

FWIW, "bounded accuracy" as a term used by the design team turned out to mean something very different than what I thought was meant by that during the playtest phase. Whether or not 5E achieves that is, imo, debatable.

Re stealth: I feel as though the rules for stealth have progressively gotten worse, more unclear, and more convoluted over the past few editions -not because there are more/less rules, but because the game uses language in a way which is counterintuitive to what the words being used normally mean.

So am I the only one that prefers the current version of stealth and hiding over at least the previous couple of editions? I guess I don't get too caught up in the exact terminology used, but I prefer that the DM establishes rough guidelines that make sense to them. As long as the DM is reasonably consistent, it seems to work well enough.

Maybe this is just one of those areas I don't want it to feel like a tactical board game and it gives the DM a lot of freedom to decide the nature and feel of their game. Things like stealth can really affect the tone and feel of the game, going anywhere from reality-adjacent (D&D is never particularly realistic) to gonzo hiding with a ton of variations.

 

[Zsong]

So am I the only one that prefers the current version of stealth and hiding over at least the previous couple of editions? I guess I don't get too caught up in the exact terminology used, but I prefer that the DM establishes rough guidelines that make sense to them. As long as the DM is reasonably consistent, it seems to work well enough.

Maybe this is just one of those areas I don't want it to feel like a tactical board game and it gives the DM a lot of freedom to decide the nature and feel of their game. Things like stealth can really affect the tone and feel of the game, going anywhere from reality-adjacent (D&D is never particularly realistic) to gonzo hiding with a ton of variations.

The idea that we have radar sense that can pinpoint the location of an invisible person to the 5 foot square they are located on does not work for me at all. You can argue the mechanics and balance all you have want it just breaks immersion. I much prefer the way 3.x handled invisibility. If it’s too powerful I would recommend getting rid of improved invisibility.

 

[Oofta]

The idea that we have radar sense that can pinpoint the location of an invisible person to the 5 foot square they are located on does not work for me at all. You can argue the mechanics and balance all you have want it just breaks immersion. I much prefer the way 3.x handled invisibility. If it’s too powerful I would recommend getting rid of improved invisibility.

Which is fine. Your table, your ruling. At my table it's situational - there has to be some reasonable way to detect invisible person. Moving around in an otherwise silent room on a marble floor? People may hear footsteps. Invisible and magically flying 50 feet above a person? Not going to be detected.

 

[Argyle King]

So am I the only one that prefers the current version of stealth and hiding over at least the previous couple of editions? I guess I don't get too caught up in the exact terminology used, but I prefer that the DM establishes rough guidelines that make sense to them. As long as the DM is reasonably consistent, it seems to work well enough.

Maybe this is just one of those areas I don't want it to feel like a tactical board game...

To me, the current version moves closer to being a board game, and -no- I don't particularly care for the previous D&D versions either. My anecdotal experience has been to feel as though it started somewhat wonky and then became progressively worse as I switched to new(er) editions.

As-is, I do not believe the game gives a player a good way to look through the eyes of their character and make a decision which appears to make sense from that perspective. From a strictly-player perspective, the current version ranges from virtually no differentiation between cover and concealment (advantage/disadvantage) to "even after hearing the screen described, I still need to ask the DM if I'm allowed to try stealth here."

I've seen arguments suggesting that invisibility (and stealth in general) is too powerful without the current way of handling it. To that, my response would be to say that magic, skills, the general "physicals engine" of the game, and the mindset* from which contemporary designers build the game should be revisited and re-evaluated.

*things which allegedly have virtually zero tactical/strategic value (as per the current way of looking at things): flight, infinite ammo with certain spells; a race which is capable of changing their looks at will; ranged attacks without drawbacks; being able to see in the dark; increased mobility & higher movement speed; vehicles and mounts; and invisibility

 

[DND_Reborn]

IME the narrative is the best thing for regulating how stealth gets resolved. For example, unless you have some special feature available, you cannot attempt to Hide when under direct observation by the creature you want to hide from. Well, you can try, certainly, but you'll automatically fail as your movement is obvious.

As far as Invisibility is concerned, it should be HUGELY advantageous IMO. In the noise and general chaos of battle, being able to track a foe who is invisible should be daunting and they should have some form of "passive stealth" (without using an Action to Hide) just as there is a passive perception.

Anyway, I know a lot of players prefer the more "free" rules of Stealth in 5E, but my preference is for more defined mechanics that make meaningful distinctions. Your comment (and the other thread) about cover vs. concealment is another such example. But as you say, much of it would require a revisit and re-evaluation which goes in a direction I doubt D&D will go in the future. Given the freedom/customization encouraged by things like Tasha's, I feel like more than ever WotC designers are encouraging tables to "make your own game" because you'll pay us anyway and then we won't have to do as much work.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hiya!

This is mostly for @Neonchameleon ...

"Rulings not Rules". Yes, perhaps I should have said "Rulings over Rules" to be more specific. To me, they both mean the same thing; a ruling is favoured over a rule.

I think the contention we are having is each of us talking about what is "good DM'ing practice", and using our own experience as the basis. For me, none of the things you mention about the player having to "guess" what the DM wants, or "ask and hope" for the DM to allow something, etc., make much sense. It doesn't make sense to me because my experience has always been with a long-term group of people and friends whom I have gamed with for years or decades. So everyone at the table "knows" one another and doesn't have any real contentious hang-ups in regards to play style preference; we are all "on the same page", so to speak.

[SNIP]

To which I would reply: Group familiarity is probably the key issue for such a stance; with strangers or people you don't know very well, I can see it being a bit of a hurdle, initially, but once everyone starts to get a feel for the group and it balances out into something everyone at the table likes...I think 'Rulings not Rules' is far superior to RAW for the sake of RAW. A game designed with rules first, but rules that are meant to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis from the GM is a FAR superior game design than one that has everything so codified, worded, labeled and defined so as to actually hinder a GM making a different ruling over the rule for some unusual case.

For 5e, for example, soooo many people are 'confused' by the term and rules for "Stealth" and "Hidden". I think this is because the people who don't like them don't like the fact that they can't point to the book and say "I did X, succeeded at Y and made my roll for Z; therefore, I am undetectable". When they can't do that, and in stead point to the rules, say that, and the GM replies with "Well, normally, sure, but in THIS case...". That's when the RAW becomes a problem; when it gives Players a false sense of "superiority" (?...is that it...maybe a false sense of "entitlement"?..."authority"?) OVER the GM.

I think the key missing piece of the puzzle here is that in the past 20 years or so (with the first published games in the movement being 2003's Fate and My Life with Master) there has been a lot of development into (a) what a GM is and (b) the interaction between the players, the GM, and how the ruleset mediates this in terms of what they bring out of everything at the table. The rules aren't there to be a physics model - they are there to train the GM to run this game well and the players to play this game well. And this means that although I run RC D&D, GURPS, and the Storyteller system fairly similarly (because I'm the same DM and the rules do roughly the same thing) but I run Apocalypse World in a very different way because I'm following D. Vincent Baker's guidelines for running that game, which are much much more like GMing a freeform game than DMing D&D.

There are definite precursors to these games (for example The Great Pendragon Campaign fits the original technical definition of a Storygame - and the oD&D XP for GP rule was brilliant at incentivising an intended playstyle) but the rules in most of them are there for the DMs to show them how to DM that game as well as for the players.

These rules are, for me, freeing for the game I want to play. I can do things as the result of the PCs actions in Apocalypse World that would make me an absolute naughty word in D&D. But I can do that in part because I'm a lot more bound; the PCs created much more of the world, and I never get to pick up a dice or even give a modifier. On the flipside they know if they fail a roll I get to cackle evilly and do something far worse than a failed roll would be normally. It's not for everyone - but that is why there are other games.

So I absolutely want rules even for the GM. They make the game more interesting and me more versatile. "Rulings, not rules" to me absolutely cuts off all these games that shape the GM.

And I've (as I've said in other threads) played with multiple groups and seen far far GM entitlement than I have seen player entitlement - and it's far more toxic to the game. I've yet to see the game where the players have the sense of superiority over the DM - but I've seen DMs effectively lobotomise PCs through house rules that nerfed things that were part of the character's fundamental design and pull stunts with rulings that meant that the PCs lost track of how the world was meant to work and were unable to engage with it effectively. And DMs who had their pet NPCs do everything while we just trailed round after them.