D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Micah Sweet]

Weren't there actual stats for vampire grass back in the day, or was that just vampire vines?

Both I think.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indeed, it's a reaction. No disagreement there. It's a reaction to something that takes more time to do than does the countering spell or effect.

It's when you a) allow reactions to reactions and b) resolve those reactions (which in theory all occur at the same "speed" in 5e as it doesn't break it down any further than "reaction speed") in LIFO order that things go haywire.

Part a) is fine on its own but only if those reactions are resolved in FIFO - first in first out - order.

Now if 5e were to break it down further and put some sort of speed ratings on each type of reaction then that would set the resolution order; but still wouldn't solve the paradox of reaction A to someone else's the same reaction A always taking less time than the initial person's reaction A to whatever trigger is being reacted to.

This would be resolved, IMO, simply by making it impossible to react to a reaction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not doubting that that's your experience, but mine is very different. I see players sitting like lumps when they're waiting between turns without options to react to what's going on outside of the initiative order. The players who have characters with options for reactions are more engaged through the entire combat.

But that's a gamist solution to a simulationist problem. Clearly not what people are looking for here.

 

[Irlo]

But that's a gamist solution to a simulationist problem. Clearly not what people are looking for here.

Well, sure, not what some people here are looking for.

But I didn’t think I was offering a solution to a problem. Just offering an observation about what seems to engage players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, sure, not what some people here are looking for.

But I didn’t think I was offering a solution to a problem. Just offering an observation about what seems to engage players.

I'm pretty sure it's not what the people you're currently debating with on this thread want. But fair enough.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, sure, not what some people here are looking for.

But I didn’t think I was offering a solution to a problem. Just offering an observation about what seems to engage players.

It's not really a "solution" though, more of a distraction in fact. Players aren't having their PCs proactively acting with a logical sense of self preservation or planning because the system bends over backwards to ensure they won't need anything won't be at risk & can expect to retcon things often enough to exacerbate the others. Pointing out that sometimes players can wait for the outcome & just nosell the results if they choose points a spotlight at the problem.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I haven't yet told you how your imagination must work. Can't double down on something I've never done.

Here you did:

You can imagine it, sure, but you are twisting it into a pretzel that it really isn't in order to imagine it that way.

Nope! My imagination works without pretzel-twisting.

Sure, but that doesn't make it simultaneous, because the rigid structure is always going to be present in combat regardless of what I do. Short of completely re-writing how combat works anyway.

The rigid structure is for the players. The characters are not experiencing everything broken up into turns and rounds. The idea that the person who counters the counterspell is doing so after the fact is due to your insistence on viewing the actions as rigidly chronological. But you simply don't need to do that.

If you prefer it, then by all means go ahead and treat it that way. But don't expect others to accept the limits you've chosen.

Within its own reality, yes - or at least it's trying to.

What I was addressing was that Max said my imagination was wrong if I imagined the moon hitting the earth and then looked out the window to find that it had not happened. In other words, that for an imagination to be "right", its contents must be fact.

Which is staggeringly off-base. It was an attempt at a counter point that pretty much reached critical mass, became a black hole, and sucked all logic into it. It made me have to lay down for a bit.

My point was not in any way about any attempt at verisimilitude or whatever you're aiming at here.

That by the time the second counterspeller realizes the first counter is being cast* and can get her own away, it's already too late.

* - as opposed to any other reaction-speed spell that she wouldn't counter.

Who says? Clearly the rules do not say that. It's AN interpretation, not THE interpretation.

Why should the second counterspell always be faster than the first, though?

Maybe it's not. Maybe the second counterspeller realized what the first was up to and was ready. Imagine for a moment that this was happening in a book or a movie instead of a game. No one would have a problem with it.

Have you ever stood up in a movie theater and said "wait that wizard just went out of turn"? I mean... I have, but it was at "The Notebook" and I was on mushrooms, so in my case it made sense. But any other time, it'd be a silly thing to say.

You and @Maxperson are applying the game structure to the fiction. Just don't do that for a moment and then there's any number of ways to say it would work as it plays.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope! My imagination works without pretzel-twisting.

That's not telling you how you have to imagine something.

How do you account for the impossibility of D&D 5e's combat system being simultaneous?

The rigid structure is for the players. The characters are not experiencing everything broken up into turns and rounds.

Yes they are. A PC that is 10 feet from the door, alert to the danger and wanting to move 10 feet can be cut off by 25 goblins moving 60 feet. That's not simultaneous movement or combat.

The idea that the person who counters the counterspell is doing so after the fact is due to your insistence on viewing the actions as rigidly chronological. But you simply don't need to do that.

If you prefer it, then by all means go ahead and treat it that way. But don't expect others to accept the limits you've chosen.

They aren't my limits. They are the game's limits. It's how combat was written. There are a great many things that happen in D&D combat that simply would not happen were combat simultaneous.

 

[Irlo]

It's not really a "solution" though, more of a distraction in fact.

As I said, I wasn’t offering a solution. If my comments are a distraction, feel free to disregard them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This debate happens all the time. Not specifically about counterspelling counterspells, but where some aspect of the game (really any RPG) just feels wrong to somebody, but instead of just saying, "I don't like that part of the game" the person feels a need to rationalize it as objectively wrong.

I actually kind of also dislike counterspelling counterspells, aesthetically. I don't need to insist that it breaks the fiction to be comfortable with disliking it. I don't (currently) ban it with a houserule, but if WotC changed the official rules to do so I would approve.

...and I can easily imagine a scene where one character tries to cast fireball, a second character counterspells it, and a third character (or even the first character?) counterspells the second character. No problem. As @hawkeyefan says, the fiction isn't bound by the game structure.