D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[JiffyPopTart]

It retcons the result of the die roll, or tries to. What was declared as a hit becomes a miss. In the fiction, this equates to taking an attack that has already connected and rolling it back to before the foe's swing began, such that the spell can be cast and the magical shield have time to interpose itself.

For this to not be a retcon the player would have to make the decision whether to cast Shield before knowing whether the attack hit or missed.

Broader issue: time only flows one way.

I don't agree with your logic. The fiction happens after all the rules of the game have finished processing. Rolling a "hit" is just one of many steps of combat, but the fiction is not established until the complete set of rules for an attack are completed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's fine. Tastes vary. I love interrupts in D&D combat.

It makes the fight a little more active and dynamic than discrete chunks of individual turn round resolution without the problems of not doing individual turn round resolution.

I played a 4e ranger with a lot of interrupts to move out of the way and to interrupt attack and it was a lot of fun for me at the table.

Playing a 5e paladin with the protector fighting style to declare I was giving an attacker's attack disadvantage against a companion was thematically awesome. The at the table timing of it is awkward enough that I am switching to the Tasha's interceptor one to mechanically reduce damage after a hit, but in game it was making me feel like a protector and the other PCs said they viscerally felt protected around my paladin which was fantastic.

To be honest, character mechanics like that, used often, always annoyed the heck out of me. Their commonality in 4e was, to me, a turn-off.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't. Or rather, I won't unless you're introducing elements of your backstory during play, which I will then build on. Show us who you are, don't leave it on the page. I find the worst roleplayers are actually the ones with the longest backstories. It's counterintuitive, but it seems to be correlated in my experience.

I 100% agree with this. However I’m guessing some people feel the same way about this as they do about the gloves: that players will try to game the system by suddenly inventing backstory in order to gain tactical advantage.

Since I don’t worry about players doing that, and because in my experience backstory invented on the fly is more creative and more colorful than the sort that is written down before play begins, I much prefer the spontaneous sort.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I can't control what people do - only what I do. Go ahead and write your backstory if it helps you play your character better. But I ain't reading it. Instead, I'll wait for you to play your character and portray elements of said backstory during the game. Then if it's interesting, I'll build on it.

This is also how I prefer my fiction.

 

[iserith]

I 100% agree with this. However I’m guessing some people feel the same way about this as they do about the gloves: that players will try to game the system by suddenly inventing backstory in order to gain tactical advantage.

Since I don’t worry about players doing that, and because in my experience backstory invented on the fly is more creative and more colorful than the sort that is written down before play begins, I much prefer the spontaneous sort.

Agreed. Unless proven otherwise, I prefer to go through life trusting others, within reason. And since the stakes are so very low and the solution to dishonesty at a table so easy to implement, I can't be bothered to DM on the defensive.

In a recent game, one of the players on the fly established they were the nephew of an NPC in town, based solely on me saying the NPC was a dwarf and had a sizeable estate. No problem - I gave them a place to stay at no cost while the rest of the PCs had to scrounge for money to stay at the local inn. What the player didn't know is that this NPC is actually a villain involved in a cult and now I'm going to have some fun with that connection!

 

[Maxperson]

That's... not how saves work in 5e...

It actually is. Rulings over rules is the prime mantra. If the DM wants to make that kind of ruling, it's right in line with how 5e works. It's not RAW, but it is how 5e works.

 

[Maxperson]

Opportunity attack PH Page 195

"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To
make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach."

It is not when they are "moving" out of your reach, it is when the creature moves out of your reach.

That's a very poorly written, "You can make an opportunity attack right before a creature leaves your reach."

If you hit them with a grapple they are restrained and do not actually move out of your reach.

In which case you have to further rewind time and undo the grapple since an opportunity attack was never triggered!

 

[Maxperson]

That'd be weird if it happened but, also, is not what was being discussed.


What we were discussing: the DM taking narrative control of a PC when describing the results of a successful save.
Some people care about this and avoid it.
Others don't care about it.
And at least one other poster apparently doesn't even think it is a thing at all, despite literally describing doing it.

It is what is being discussed, though. If the player is not having his PC do anything to resist and I can't narrate such a resistance, the player has just opted for his PC to fail the save.

And to your other post, if it's not the player's fault, I'm not going to punish them with saves. I'd give the cleric and rogue a save.

 

[tetrasodium]

Apparently, the PC missed the "sufficient telegraphing," or they would have brought up the fact that their outfit had gloves earlier.

Sometimes even professionals do the dumb. 5e makes this worse by encouraging quantum actions the GM is forced to adjudicate rather than giving both sides clear actions & struyctures to be leveraged.

Shield isn't the only thing that can turn a potential hit into a miss in 5e.

As such rather than saying "the orc hits you..." perhaps a better statement would be "the orc will hit unless you can do something about it..." and give the player (or another player who might have an ability) a second to see if there is something they can and wish to do.

That way, you're not backing up and there is no retcon.

No.. that's just wrong. The players only get so much leeway before they are disrupting the game with retcons. In this too it doesn't matter if Bob was paying attention & "missed it" or not. That bolded bit is not a unidirectional thing as you are making it out to.

As a GM I've already done that when I said "the orc is going to attack Bob three times". If Bob wants to use his reaction the time to do so is immediately & fast before I start resolving those three rolls rather than after I've resolved the telegraphed attack roll for shield/parry or the attack roll and damage roll for uncanny dodge. Unfortunately the way these abilities are designed is one that pressures the player to not pay attention & retcon for maximum effectiveness so I can't even houserule that the reaction must be taken before the rolls are made without directly nerfing my players & casting player resentment. Sometimes badly designed abilities are just objectively bad for gameplay on too many levels to justify any good ends that comes from the means of their mechanics.

 

[Mort]

Sometimes even professionals do the dumb. 5e makes this worse by encouraging quantum actions the GM is forced to adjudicate rather than giving both sides clear actions & struyctures to be leveraged.

No.. that's just wrong. The players only get so much leeway before they are disrupting the game with retcons. In this too it doesn't matter if Bob was paying attention & "missed it" or not. That bolded bit is not a unidirectional thing as you are making it out to.

As a GM I've already done that when I said "the orc is going to attack Bob three times". If Bob wants to use his reaction the time to do so is immediately & fast before I start resolving those three rolls rather than after I've resolved the telegraphed attack roll for shield/parry or the attack roll and damage roll for uncanny dodge. Unfortunately the way these abilities are designed is one that pressures the player to not pay attention & retcon for maximum effectiveness so I can't even houserule that the reaction must be taken before the rolls are made without directly nerfing my players & casting player resentment. Sometimes badly designed abilities are just objectively bad for gameplay on too many levels to justify any good ends that comes from the means of their mechanics.

Interesting that you argue the intended play loop causes a lack of attention.

I've noticed it ensures players are following closely - as a failure to follow closely means a missed opportunity to use the reaction.