D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[mamba]

How much damage does a bullet do in the real world?

yeah, that is just evading the topic, not addressing it. It’s the gun that needs to reflect that, not inconsistent stat blocks

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know who those people were, but most of the time I see a lot of people that want there to be an explanation for how, even if it's their training rises past the mundane and into the supernatural. And a lot on the other side. It's not one sided like you are implying there.

Ok, cool. A hobgoblins training allows them to do more damage with a longsword, almost to a supernatural degree.

That was easy..

 

[Horwath]

Yeah. I call it 5.5, but I think the meaning is clear.

I call it 5.01, as that is the level of changes from 2014.

 

[Teemu]

Then give it the Super Smash Bro ability that adds 1d10 damage to the weapon used, or give it Smush the Enemy, which allows it to double it's damage 3 times a day. Or whatever ability you want to bring it up to the CR you need it to be.

Just allowing it to do X damage with any weapon you arm it with just because it's a hobgoblin does both the hobgoblin and the weapons a disservice. Both should have meaning independently.

It's a mage, not a wizard.

Seriously, though, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of different "classes" and "subclasses" out in the wide, wide D&D world. The WotC is allergic to give us players more options doesn't change that, so if the mage is a bit different than a wizard as a class, that's not unusual. A mage picking up a dagger or a greatsword and hitting for the same damage would be.

So it's fine to omit all the various traits for X creatures, but not for Y creatures. Again, I argue that it's simply due to change: we didn't get all the possible traits for 2014 stat blocks, and thus we don't even miss them. But now they've omitted a few more? Unacceptable. I see this as utterly inconsistent.

It's fine to leave out the details of the mage "class" and why it gets a d8 HD and why it gets to cast X spells and why it has those skills, etc. Do all Mages have those skills? Are they always part of Mage training? The saving throws? Can a Mage have different saving throw proficiencies? Do they always cast wizard spells? Can they have "subclass" spells?

None of that is included. It's all arbitrary. Yet, that's fine. (Because we got used to it.) Now we have stat blocks that can deal extra dice of damage with a single attack and there's no trait for it? Ok, that's crossing the line. Entire classes that are never detailed? Completely fine! A single trait not detailed? Unacceptable.

Probably because proficiency isn’t as important as attack and damage bonuses? Do I need an NPC mage to cast ritual magic? If it ever came up in game, it’s probably not in the context of combat, and then the NPC can simply have the spell. I’m not looking back to the 2e/3e days where the NPC wizard’s entire spell book needs to be detailed to me. There is a happy medium, IMO.

The Hit dice thing is an issue for me, but I’m also not defending 2014 as perfect. I’m saying I don’t want to slide further in the direction of things not making sense within the system OR having some explanation narratively.

Proficiency literally determines the creature's attack bonuses. It is absolutely fundamental in determining how good it is at attacking.

Again, this argument is incredibly inconsistent. On one hand, it's completely fine to leave out incredibly relevant traits (which didn't make an appearance in 2014), but when it's changed a little? Oh, now it's very important! Except it's still fine to leave out these other traits, which would "show the work" and tell why a creature can do X or Y.

It can't, and thus is IMO poor design, I suspect due to an excessive-to-the-point-of-ridiculous desire to want to make all the PC-playable species function the same mechanically (and work with the 5' grid).

So if they can't represent the whole of the creature because the very baseline core fundamental rules of the game work fully against that concept, why demand that creature stat blocks represent a kind of objective truth when you yourself have also established that it's impossible within the framework of D&D (all editions in fact)? Even just the concept of AC and hit points make it impossible to do it because once you start digging deeper, it all falls apart and the world becomes a goofy video game mess.

 

[Remathilis]

This is a weird stance. You realize the people on the "fighters need powersources" side are generally the same people on the "longswords should be a discrete thing" side, right?

Yes, I realize the hypocrisy. It appears that when they want fighters to break the laws of physics, any excuse (or no excuse) is fine, but a hobgoblin doing extra damage? Sorry, I need a full audit and paragraph of rules and lore to explain it.

 

[Remathilis]

Saw this in another thread a minute ago, but it fits here too

“Also from the 2024 MM: Higher CR pirate officers get a very significant base weapon damage multiplier on each attack...for no in-game rational, explicable reason. Which incidentally means that the pistol attacks of a CR 12 Pirate Admiral NPC deal exactly as much damage on average as the enormous claw attacks of a gargantuan sized CR 24 Ancient Gold Dragon....(though admittedly with a much smaller attack bonus). Don't worry, though, any of the CR 12 Questing Knight NPC's three weapon attacks outdamage both of those previous fools; as well as the claws of any other enormous, centuries-old, 20+ CR ancient dragon. Largely because the questing knight's weapons are secretly lasers.”

Yeah, that's the problem when you give creatures a challenge rating and expect them to be appropriate challenged. A questing knight or pirate admiral are doing high level damage appropriate to their CR. They did that because people complained monsters were not challenging enough and most didn't do enough damage, and thus were HP sponges wielding nerf bars. WotC listened and fixed the damage. I'd rather have NPCs who hit and deal damage appropriate to their challenge than a realistic knight doing 1d8 +mod damage and barely tickling a high level fighter.

 

[TiQuinn]

Proficiency literally determines the creature's attack bonuses. It is absolutely fundamental in determining how good it is at attacking.

You didn’t say proficiency bonus, I thought you were talking about weapon proficiencies.

Again, this argument is incredibly inconsistent. On one hand, it's completely fine to leave out incredibly relevant traits (which didn't make an appearance in 2014), but when it's changed a little? Oh, now it's very important! Except it's still fine to leave out these other traits, which would "show the work" and tell why a creature can do X or Y.

Well, you know what they say about consistency and hobgoblins…

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes, I realize the hypocrisy. It appears that when they want fighters to break the laws of physics, any excuse (or no excuse) is fine, but a hobgoblin doing extra damage? Sorry, I need a full audit and paragraph of rules and lore to explain it.

I mean, I don’t think it’s quite as severe as that - I’d probably solve it by having a standard Hobgoblin and then having a Hobgoblin Brute Squad who have 20 strength or some such. And I’m not personally on the martials are terrible bandwagon or whatever that other point you made was.

 

[mamba]

Yeah, that's the problem when you give creatures a challenge rating and expect them to be appropriate challenged.

no, that is the problem when they have to do so with a sword

 

[Krachek]

It’s hard to stick to basics.

The DM describe.
The players tell want he want to do.

If the DM call a damage, I should take it without a flinch.

But I can analyse that fact and meta game the average damage, or even pretend that my characters should know the average damage of this kind of monster and weapon.
If I’m in a urge to « win » I can contest for myself that damage, if my urge to « win » is greater I will contest it openly to the DM.

Depending on the adventure, my character and the DM I seen my mood vary greatly.
Sometime I take all descriptions from the DM for cash without a flinch.
Sometime I start to meta and evaluate in background the mechanics.