D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Bill Zebub]

* - which must be true as you can't react to something that has yet to happen,

Have you ever known what a family member or good friend was about to say, and you cut them off before they could say it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

NVM

 

[Voadam]

Other than that, my point is that interrupts should have to be declared before it's clear whether there will in fact be anything for them to successfully interrupt - i.e. at the end of step 1 before any mechanical resolution processes begin.

Otherwise IMO it gives too much power to the interrupter.

This is very much a tastes vary thing.

I find the "guess whether to use the resource ahead of time" model as not nearly as fun and leads to a lot of spending time at the table interrupting the flow to resolve stuff that ends up with the same result as if the resource had not been used at all. For me this feels frustrating and a waste of time that could be spent instead on player and monster actions that result in some actual effect or on just doing things quicker without the mechanic.

Ideally for me interrupts at the table should be quickly implemented effects at the table. "21 hits your 20 AC." "Shield! Blocked!" is quick and feels like the player actively using resources defending.

If they are a huge guessing game about whether they will come into effect or not you are just putting an incentive to instead use longer lasting defenses such as mage armor, or utility, or attack spells.

I do not feel interrupts as interrupts give too much power to the interrupter, I think that is a fine power model in D&D.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not fine. Why does the character who reacts last - both in the fiction* and at the table - get to resolve first?

* - which must be true as you can't react to something that has yet to happen, you can only pro-act; reaction by definition cannot occur until there's something to react to.

Because that's how reacting works. Both in and out of fiction.

Reactions is both noticing and anticipating. A guy is at a baseball game and the batter tips a foul ball into the crowd. The guy sees the ball coming and ducks. The guy beside him sees him starting to duck and lifts his beer to safety from the first guy's head coming down.

 

[iserith]

"I think counterspell and shield just makes the game more boring for everyone since it's negates someone doing something." Okay, fair enough. I can see that, even if I don't ban the spells myself.

"I think counterspell and shield are imbalanced and favor the PCs too much." I disagree, but fine.

Any other argument though - "realism," play process, timing, "gamism bad," or whatever - looks to me like post-hoc justification one or both of the above preferences. I don't buy any of it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

After years of D&D forums, I have absolutely no doubts that people just straight up think gamism is bad. For this game.

 

[iserith]

After years of D&D forums, I have absolutely no doubts that people just straight up think gamism is bad. For this game.

I view any objections as to that sort of thing as a statement of belonging to a particular tribe. Perhaps when those terms were coined they had some kind of discernible meaning, but now they strike me as just another form of tribalism among many in today's world.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I view any objections as to that sort of thing as a statement of belonging to a particular tribe. Perhaps when those terms were coined they had some kind of discernible meaning, but now they strike me as just another form of tribalism among many in today's world.

Eh, they have their uses in terms of design direction, but like most things, teaching D&D nerds words (verisimilitude, badwrongfun) leads to disaster.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fine.

Not fine. Why does the character who reacts last - both in the fiction* and at the table - get to resolve first?

* - which must be true as you can't react to something that has yet to happen, you can only pro-act; reaction by definition cannot occur until there's something to react to.

Timing.

Again, you're ignoring the part where I am saying that the order of events does not have to be the same for the characters as the players. Your view is far too strict regarding the turn structure and the designation of the action as a "reaction".

Part of reaction often is being ready for something. Anticipating or expecting it and then responding once it happens. This is what I've been saying.

If you simply don't enforce the turn structure onto the characters in the fiction, then it all can flow perfectly fine in the fiction, and perfectly fine at the table.

It's this perceived need to have them match that causes the issue. That desire to have them match is not a need, but rather a preference.

The answer to that bolded bit is the same reason why you can't learn to safely text & drive a thousand plus pound vehicle moving at potentially deadly speeds. Humans are bad at multitasking. We need to go through full context switching rather than a lower overhead multithreaded conscious thought. It's not a thing our brains evolved to be capable of doing. Taking that to the question of why forcing the GM to engage in context switching is problematic you just need to factor in that most GMs are human. but 5e is designed in a way that simply shrugs it off.

I'm unsure if you're talking about the characters here or the GM.

If you're talking about the characters and their ability to track multiple factors in a hectic environment such as combat, I would agree that it is incredibly difficult. But it's also something humans have always done and continue to do.

If instead you're tlking about the GM, I don't think it's too much to ask a GM to allow reactions. I handle them fine when I GM, and every other GM I've seen handles them fine. If a particular GM actually struggled with them for some cognitive reason, then sure, he should limit or ban them. But I don't think that the rules need to be changed to meet that specific GM's needs.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm of the opinion
1. That it's not practical in the middle of combat to narrate a declaration of casting a spell to see if anyone counters it. When I DM I immediately declare the spell being cast or the description of the spell effects as do the players. Take the movie Willow for example where the evil Queen counterspells his pebble of petrifiction once she finds out the magic which has been unleashed.
2. DMs/Players may change spells being countered if they're not openly declared. Open cards removes this ambiguity and levels the playing field.
3. Xanathars rule for identification is rubbish and works against Counterspell.
4. Thematically it works better to know the arrow was going to hit you and you cast a Shield spell than to possibly cast Shield for nothing. We are trying to recreate awesome moments not create meh fantasy.