D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[MichaelSomething]

How come no one ever complained about tripping oozes in 3rd Edition?? The Ooze type doesn't grant trip immunity...

Types & Subtypes :: d20srd.org

www.d20srd.org

What that addressed in 3.5?

Pathfinder doesn't say Oozes are immune to trips either...

Oozes – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

 

[cbwjm]

People probably did complain about the absurdity of tripping oozes in 3e, but there's a whole other edition and a sizeable chunk of 5e in the way of our memory.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

How come no one ever complained about tripping oozes in 3rd Edition?? The Ooze type doesn't grant trip immunity...

Types & Subtypes :: d20srd.org

www.d20srd.org

What that addressed in 3.5?

Pathfinder doesn't say Oozes are immune to trips either...

Oozes – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Tripping in 3.x was OP there were entire trip builds which I found much more offensive to verisimilitude than anything in 4e.

 

[darjr]

This blog post points to the no longer available FAQ from wizards about prone oozes in 4e.

Tripping Oozes in D&D (3e versus 4e versus 5e)

A few days ago, someone asked what was the difference between 4e and 5e in an internet forum . I tried to explain that I liked 5e over 4e ...

methodsetmadness.blogspot.com

4e FAQ

Can a gelatinous cube be knocked prone? In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition

And yes, I point to a reference that points to a no longer existing reference. I know. It doesn't exist in the downloadable FAQ as far as I can tell, but that doesn't look complete anyway.

So there is another reference from rpg.net.

You can knock a snake prone in D&D | Dungeons & Dragons / Fantasy D20 Spotlight

A giant constrictor snake is not immune to the "prone" condition. Let's say a Battle Master uses whatever maneuver knocks you prone because he wants everybody else to get advantage on their attacks. As a DM, do you say, "no, you can't knock a snake prone. That's just common sense. The Monster...

forum.rpg.net

And further in that thread there is a post that goes on, accepting it as good advice, and explains that "you might not realize how many things your shutting down" which as a game philosophy is paralyzing and leaves you even more strictly following the rules verbatim. If you like that sort of thing, then fine, I do not.

I think playing an RPG, as a player or a DM, often calls for rulings and I think it's better to do that than to stop the game and dig around in the rules to get it just right.

Oh and finally here is a reference to that FAQ entry here at ENWorld from 2008.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/knocking-godzilla-prone.230566/post-4288924

 

[darjr]

Oh and just to pull it out of the blog post here is the 3.5 FAQ entry, though I haven't looked to verify it.

Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped. You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common sense.

 

[pemerton]

This blog post points to the no longer available FAQ from wizards about prone oozes in 4e.

Tripping Oozes in D&D (3e versus 4e versus 5e)

A few days ago, someone asked what was the difference between 4e and 5e in an internet forum . I tried to explain that I liked 5e over 4e ...

methodsetmadness.blogspot.com

4e FAQ

Can a gelatinous cube be knocked prone? In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition

And yes, I point to a reference that points to a no longer existing reference. I know. It doesn't exist in the downloadable FAQ as far as I can tell, but that doesn't look complete anyway.

So there is another reference from rpg.net.

You can knock a snake prone in D&D | Dungeons & Dragons / Fantasy D20 Spotlight

A giant constrictor snake is not immune to the "prone" condition. Let's say a Battle Master uses whatever maneuver knocks you prone because he wants everybody else to get advantage on their attacks. As a DM, do you say, "no, you can't knock a snake prone. That's just common sense. The Monster...

forum.rpg.net

<snip>

Oh and finally here is a reference to that FAQ entry here at ENWorld from 2008.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/knocking-godzilla-prone.230566/post-4288924

Oh and just to pull it out of the blog post here is the 3.5 FAQ entry, though I haven't looked to verify it.

Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped. You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common sense.

I reiterate that there is something ironic about need a rule to permit houseruling!

And further in that thread there is a post that goes on, accepting it as good advice, and explains that "you might not realize how many things your shutting down" which as a game philosophy is paralyzing and leaves you even more strictly following the rules verbatim.

If it's good advice for 4e it's also good advice for 3E, and vice versa - it's not as if "shutting things down" is a distinctive concern for one version of the game compared to the other.

I also wonder, for whom is it paralysing? Presumably not the player of the character who is hoping to impose a condition on the cube!

 

[Alzrius]

Pathfinder doesn't say Oozes are immune to trips either...

Oozes – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Actually, it does say that (emphasis mine):

Combat: Pathfinder.d20srd.org

pathfinder.d20srd.org

Trip

You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.

 

[Mannahnin]

Reading through the thread up to here (page 13 of 31), I've seen this call for action-movie emulation come up several times.

I posit that a D&D campaign isn't an action movie, and that to even try to achieve or maintain such a pace for longer than a single scene is a fool's errand and doomed to failure. That kind of pace just isn't sustainable if one wants to keep even a shred of realism in the setting.

I posit that D&D was originally directly intended to emulate Leiber, Howard, Burroughs, and Tolkien, and to facilitate dungeon exploration with multiple encounters between retreats from the dungeon. That it is intended to support a narrowly-won duel to the death followed by a chase and then another challenging battle. And that historically the rate of healing has been unable to keep up with the pace of action desired by many players and DMs, without the kludge of making piles of healing spells and magic potions available all the time so you can SKIP/circumvent the regular healing rules. And that this desire for such a faster pace of action is exactly why the healing rate has steadily accelerated in every single new edition from 1974 through today (5E took a slight step backwards from 4E, but is still much faster than 3.x).

I get that you're comfortable with 1E (well, your extensively houseruled 1E), and thus have evidently accommodated to its healing rules and come to accept them as "how D&D works". But the designers of every edition since 1974 have, in apparent response to players' desire to have the game better emulate heroic fantasy media (books as well as action fantasy movies), kept accelerating it.

 

[James Gasik]

Actually, it does say that (emphasis mine):

Combat: Pathfinder.d20srd.org

pathfinder.d20srd.org

Curiously, for whatever reason, sometimes the immunity to trip is in the statblock of PF1e monsters, and sometimes it isn't, so if you haven't read Trip closely, you might think "huh, so this legless thing can be tripped while this other one can't be"- and boy, did I see a lot of arguments about that happen in play!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Curiously, for whatever reason, sometimes the immunity to trip is in the statblock of PF1e monsters, and sometimes it isn't, so if you haven't read Trip closely, you might think "huh, so this legless thing can be tripped while this other one can't be"- and boy, did I see a lot of arguments about that happen in play!

Which goes back to what @overgeeked referred to, and to what I have found true as well, and goes into why FKR and rules-lite games actually don't feature arguments about play.

More rules don't, in fact, reduce arguments. More rules usually lead to more arguments. This is true in games, and, in fact, in most aspects of life (think of the prolixity of a legal code, or arguments about accounting).

This is because rules can't cover all cases; instead, as new cases arise, you will need more rules. And those rules will intersect with other rules, creating additional complexity - which leads to more arguments and/or the need for more rules.

What matters, in the end, is just "buy in" from the participants. I say this not because I am against crunchy systems, or because I don't believe that some systems are better designed, or "tighter" than other systems- just that rules qua rules are not a good in and themselves.