D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Maxperson]

It doesn't bother me, because that's the way the game is designed at a root level. To figure things out as simultaneous, you'd have to change a lot of other things, and get lots more complicated. And I'm not just interested in this level of tactical, second-by-second minutiae for tabletop gaming; we have CRPGs and MMOs for that kind of play.

Same, which is why I just ignore that aspect of combat people just take their turns.

 

[tetrasodium]

You've linked to the playloop presented in the exploration chapter. As such, it comes off as a bit vague when combat comes around - but sure it can work.

BUT you have to fit more into step two and it doesn't finish until all actions that could happen on the players turn are resolved. Specifically, You have to fit in the your turn section of the combat chapter - which includes reactions.

A reaction is something that could happen on the players turn, until reactions are resolved (and insuring there aren't any is resolving them) then you don't progress to step 3. So I don't see how you say reactions happen outside of step 2.

Once the DM progresses to step 3, it's generally too late for reactions (barring newbie "oops I forgot I can..." and hope the DM is generous about it and backs up).

This comes off sounding a lot like suggesting a return of 2e style "combat secquence"

Spoiler: this is it

TheCombat Sequence

In real life, combat is one of the closest things to pure anarchy. Each side is attempting to harm the other, essentially causing disorder and chaos. Thus, combats are filled with unknowns—unplanned events, failed attacks, lack of communication, and general confusion and uncertainty. However, to play a battle in the game, it is necessary to impose some order on the actions. Within a
combat round, there is a set series of steps that must be followed. These are:
1. The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting spells, if any.
2. The players indicate what their characters will do, including and casting of spells.
3. Initiative is determined.
4. Attacks are made in order of initiative.
These steps are followed until the combat ends—either one side is defeated, surrenders, or runs away. NPC/Monster Determination: In the first step, the DM secretly decides in general terms what each opponent will do, such as attack, flee, or cast a spell. He does not announce his decisions to the players. If a spell is to be cast, the DM picks the spell before the players announce their characters’ actions.

Player Determination: Next, the players give a general indication of what their characters are planning to do. This
does not have to be perfectly precise and can be changed
somewhat if the DM decides that circumstances warrant.
If the characters are battling goblins, a player can say, “My
fighter will attack” without announcing which goblin he will
strike. If the characters are battling a mixed group of goblins
and ogres, the player has to state whether his character is
attacking goblins or ogres.
Spells to be cast must also be announced at this time and
cannot be changed once the initiative die is rolled. In any situ-
ation where the abilities of a character could make a differ-
ence, a clear description must be given.
Before moving on, the DM will make sure he has a clear
idea of not only what the player characters are doing, but also
what actions any hirelings and henchmen are taking. Once he
has a clear view of everything that’s likely to happen, the DM
can overrule any announced action that violates the rules (or
in the case of an NPC, is out of character).
He is not required to overrule an impossible action, but he
can let a character attempt it anyway, knowing full well the
character cannot succeed. It is not the DM’s position to advise
players on the best strategies, most intelligent actions, or
optimum maneuvers for their characters.

Initiative: In the third step, dice are rolled to determine
initiative, according to the rules for initiative.

Resolution: In the last step, PCs, NPCs, and monsters
make their attacks, spells occur, and any other actions are
resolved according to the order of initiative.
The above sequence is not immutable. Indeed, some
monsters violate the standard sequence, and some situations
demand the application of common sense. In these cases the
DM’s word is final.

Step3 should be too late, but the reaction abilities are worded so their conditions occur during step3 unless the GM goes back to the old style of combat sequence for step1. 5e is not built that way and it would be a nerf to force the reaction abilities into adhering for it since players can wait until an attack has hit or not before reacting rather than needing to decide immediately during a declaration like "X is going to cast a spell". Is it really reasonable to expect the GM make their players accept nerfs with no support from wotc to correct the designed in problem?

 

[hawkeyefan]

The playloop & violations of it are mechanical, you keep avoiding that. Should we just ignore the fact that the design is mechanically disruptive to a game that is constrained by the limitations of human communication & conceptual space in memory not existing as some form of multithreaded computer sim then go back to your personal neotrad storytelling interpretation?

uhh... step1GM describes the environment. Step2 players describe what they want to do. Step3 dm narrates the results of the adventurer's actions. Your proposed but not explained alternative is going to need a bit more depth in it's explanation before we can talk about that "maybe"

I don't see any violation of the three steps. Step two says "players".

Someone with more specific 5e knowledge can jump in here about this, but isn't it still true with arcane spells that they are written out in meticulous formulae with specific instructions etc. thus requiring arcane casters to carry around spellbooks containing such for each spell known?

If yes, then the counterspell must at the very least be done the exact same way each time any one caster uses it, as per the instructions in that caster's book;

Wizards have spellbooks. How meticulous or complicated the spells may be is not defined. Neither are other casting details beyond the basic V, S, and M components, and what the M may be.

Nor does the book say that casting a counterspell works the exact same way every time a caster uses it. No more than it describes a Bard having to sing a song exactly the same way every time, or a rogue using his lockpick exactly the same way.

Nor does it say that there is only one version of every spell that all casters know.

These are all assumptions or preferences on your part.

and if I'm playing a caster and another caster counters my counter by casting it faster you can be sure I want to get my mitts on that caster's spellbook and learn that quicker-to-cast version.

Maybe it's not a quicker to cast version. Maybe they just managed to cast it quicker this time. Or, and this is what I would tend to go with, maybe they cast it first. As I've said a few times now, there's no reason that the events of the fiction need to adhere to our turn structure.

And on a broader level, the flaw with any sort of LIFO structure is that the advantageous position is always held by the person who waits the longest to (re)act, where from an action-first derring-do mentality it would seem better that the advantage go to the first to (re)act. This also shows up in situations where someone wants to provoke combat by doing something sudden (i.e. acting first) and can't due to the way the initiative/turn model works.

There are advantages and disadvantages to acting first and to waiting to act. And although it's the player who is acting last, there's no reason that the characters experience these things in the exact order.

I think that's what's being overlooked. Max described it as "twisting" the fiction.... but really, it's just the fiction that makes sense based on what happens in the game.

Thing is, the only way to circumvent this at the table level is to go to some sort of "everyone declares actions then they're all resolved at once" setup, which has its own bevy of issues.

No, that's clearly not the only way. I've described another way that works without having to do that. Just allow the turns to happen as needed for the players, and then describe what happens in the fiction.

 

[Mort]

This comes off sounding a lot like suggesting a return of 2e style "combat secquence"

Spoiler: this is it

TheCombat Sequence

In real life, combat is one of the closest things to pure anarchy. Each side is attempting to harm the other, essentially causing disorder and chaos. Thus, combats are filled with unknowns—unplanned events, failed attacks, lack of communication, and general confusion and uncertainty. However, to play a battle in the game, it is necessary to impose some order on the actions. Within a
combat round, there is a set series of steps that must be followed. These are:
1. The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including casting spells, if any.
2. The players indicate what their characters will do, including and casting of spells.
3. Initiative is determined.
4. Attacks are made in order of initiative.
These steps are followed until the combat ends—either one side is defeated, surrenders, or runs away. NPC/Monster Determination: In the first step, the DM secretly decides in general terms what each opponent will do, such as attack, flee, or cast a spell. He does not announce his decisions to the players. If a spell is to be cast, the DM picks the spell before the players announce their characters’ actions.

Player Determination: Next, the players give a general indication of what their characters are planning to do. This
does not have to be perfectly precise and can be changed
somewhat if the DM decides that circumstances warrant.
If the characters are battling goblins, a player can say, “My
fighter will attack” without announcing which goblin he will
strike. If the characters are battling a mixed group of goblins
and ogres, the player has to state whether his character is
attacking goblins or ogres.
Spells to be cast must also be announced at this time and
cannot be changed once the initiative die is rolled. In any situ-
ation where the abilities of a character could make a differ-
ence, a clear description must be given.
Before moving on, the DM will make sure he has a clear
idea of not only what the player characters are doing, but also
what actions any hirelings and henchmen are taking. Once he
has a clear view of everything that’s likely to happen, the DM
can overrule any announced action that violates the rules (or
in the case of an NPC, is out of character).
He is not required to overrule an impossible action, but he
can let a character attempt it anyway, knowing full well the
character cannot succeed. It is not the DM’s position to advise
players on the best strategies, most intelligent actions, or
optimum maneuvers for their characters.

Initiative: In the third step, dice are rolled to determine
initiative, according to the rules for initiative.

Resolution: In the last step, PCs, NPCs, and monsters
make their attacks, spells occur, and any other actions are
resolved according to the order of initiative.
The above sequence is not immutable. Indeed, some
monsters violate the standard sequence, and some situations
demand the application of common sense. In these cases the
DM’s word is final.

Step3 should be too late, but the reaction abilities are worded so their conditions occur during step3 unless the GM goes back to the old style of combat sequence for step1. 5e is not built that way and it would be a nerf to force the reaction abilities into adhering for it since players can wait until an attack has hit or not before reacting rather than needing to decide immediately during a declaration like "X is going to cast a spell". Is it really reasonable to expect the GM make their players accept nerfs with no support from wotc to correct the designed in problem?

Players should not expect ANYTHING to be final until step 2 has resolved.

The hit or spell is a potential hit or spell until the DM has determined that no one is doing anything about it and moves on to step 3 - at which point it is too late to interject.

In practice, and this MAY be irritating if you run a lot of tables, the DM needs to determine if any PC has interrupt abilities and has to account for that accordingly.

If there ARE interrupts available at the table (and at mid high level play, they are invetable), The DM is best served by making sure he accounts for them BEFORE moving to step 3, but also making players aware that once step 3 comes (The DM dictating the results) it's too late for further reactions etc.

 

[iserith]

Players should not expect ANYTHING to be final until step 2 has resolved.

The hit or spell is a potential hit or spell until the DM has determined that no one is doing anything about it and moves on to step 3 - at which point it is too late to interject.

In practice, and this MAY be irritating if you run a lot of tables, the DM needs to determine if any PC has interrupt abilities and has to account for that accordingly.

If there ARE interrupts available at the table (and at mid high level play, they are invetable), The DM is best served by making sure he accounts for them BEFORE moving to step 3, but also making players aware that once step 3 comes (The DM dictating the results) it's too late for further reactions etc.

The whole discussion reminds me of people who hate hit points and long rests because "How can someone slashed to ribbons wake up just fine the next morning?" Well the answer is not to describe the PCs as being "slashing to ribbons?" A total self-inflicted wound, that is.

 

[Xamnam]

Maybe this is parsing it too widely, but Step 3 of the playloop leads directly into, and is sometimes synonymous with the activity of Step 1, so reacting to what happens there is just a new Step 2, and doesn't break anything about it from my perspective.

Step 1: Setting the combat as it leads into a players turn.
Step 2: Declaring your combat action, in this case a spell.
Step 3: The counterspeller reacts and casts, which establishes>
Step 1: The new set of circumstances for players to respond to in which
Step 2: That or another player counterspells

and so on and so forth.

 

[Maxperson]

Wizards have spellbooks. How meticulous or complicated the spells may be is not defined. Neither are other casting details beyond the basic V, S, and M components, and what the M may be.

Nor does the book say that casting a counterspell works the exact same way every time a caster uses it. No more than it describes a Bard having to sing a song exactly the same way every time, or a rogue using his lockpick exactly the same way.

"Copying that spell into your spell book involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spell book using your own notation."

"VERBAL (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."

"SOMATIC (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures."

These aren't variable things. You practice the spell until you understand the specific sounds and gestures required. If you vary those, you aren't casting the spell. The spell will be the same each time a particular wizard casts the spell. It's not going to be longer this time and shorter next time. It won't have these gestures this time and those other gestures next time.

 

[pemerton]

Because magic relies on those things being precisely done. The verbal requires particular combinations of sounds with specific and pitches of sound. At the same time as you are doing that, you have to gesture in a specific way, and at the same time as that you have to provide a material component. Excepting spells that lack one or more of those.

If you interrupt the spell, you are breaking those specific things which would spoil the spell.

I'm not sure where you are getting the above from. Here's what I found on p 100 of the SRD (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf):

In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect - in most cases, all in the span of seconds.​

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure where you are getting the above from. Here's what I found on p 100 of the SRD (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf):

In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect - in most cases, all in the span of seconds.​

See my post right above yours for where I get it from. You are looking at fluff. I'm quoting the RAW.

 

[pemerton]

Sorry, the "it's all just a magical elf-game anyway" argument holds no water with me.

Who said that? Not me in the post you quoted.

To reiterate: a "realism" argument about whether or not someone casting a magical spell Dr Strange-style can interrupt it to cast a Counterspell is a contradiction in terms - the answer is entirely made up, either directly or as part of some extrapolation or building on some prior conception of how the magic works which was entirely made up. There are no constraints, and where there are no constraints I don't see how their can be argument at all.

You seem to be denying that the "truth" about how magic works is made up. But I don't know where you think that truth is found, and how it constrains what I or other RPGers can coherently imagine.