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

[Lakesidefantasy]

Conjure Animals?

They can absolutely do both. They can swim and they can breathe air. They move as you direct them. They're intangible animal spirits. I suppose, as such, technically, they neither breathe or swim, but, that seems a rather pointless distinction.

How is this not 100% reified? I summoned a pack of animal spirits that attack enemies and help me. How would it be more reified?

We summon the animals of the forest to our aid. Can we still do that? Were we ever able to do that? We're not looking for spirits, we're looking animals, THE animals of the forest, or the fishes of the sea, or maybe even the rats of the sewers.

Do we have to do a little reskinning (not a bad thing) to get the above effects? Would our fishes suddenly be able to walk on land and breathe air? Would this be because we've reskinned spirits?

 

[Lanefan]

This is a missed oppotunity IMO.

Just like a commoner has d8 HP and a longsword does d8 damage, experience and skill can (and should) change those numbers.

So, as you level up, you have more HD and more HP, and as you level up, the d8 longsword should become something more as well... but it doesn't.

Well, yes it does; as you level up you hit for damage more often when you swing it. That's where the growing-skill piece is reflected.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, no, because the point of, say, the guard captain is to have a more challenging foe than a regular guard. Again, I could generate an NPC for that role, say a level 8 fighter (champion) and play through their turn just as I would a PC, and that option is there for those who want that level of equivalence between their creatures and characters. But I would rather just have a much simplified version that has similar damage and survivability in order to keep things moving.

Sure, that's fine.

The problems arise when the "simplfied version" NPC can do things an equivalent PC of the same species etc. cannot, just because.

As long as the simplified version's capabilities remains within the borders of what's PC-possible, all is good. I do my NPC opponents this way all the time - I don't go through all the steps of rolling them up longhand but instead just assign them numbers that fall within the range of what a PC of the same class-species-level could achieve.

 

[Hussar]

At the end of the day, no, giving something a special ability (Brute in this case) with only a nominal clue as to its means of function is NOT a fantastic way of explaining a damage bonus. HOWEVER, and this is key, it is INFINITELY more informative than having no explanation at all.

But nothing in brute connotes skill, which one of your examples means and the other examples relies on the size and strength of the character, neither of which a halfling has.

So no it is not better to have an explanation because your narrations are both inconsistent with the in game reality. Having an explanation only serves to remind us that this is inconsistent and meaningless.

Edit to add:

The premise on the table is that concrete definitions of how npcs do things make it easier to narrate and makes the game more consistent.

Prove it. Give me a narration that allows my halfling gladiator to deal more damage with a great club throw brute power than an ogre can. We’re 0 for 2 so far.

 

[ezo]

Well, yes it does; as you level up you hit for damage more often when you swing it. That's where the growing-skill piece is reflected.

Hitting more often is just one aspect, the other is making each hit more lethal (which should be reflected in the potential damage).

 

[Clint_L]

I am reminded that 5e was supposed to be "evergreen" insofar as they felt that D&D was going into maintenance mode after 4e underperformed. Make an edition that feels like a greatest hits and support it with minimal output (a few sourcebooks, an annual module/AP). They said they had material prepped for up to 2018, and low-and-behold, starting in 2019, the product line shifted. The game was far more popular than they assumed it would be (due to the perfect storm of CR, Covid, and Stranger Things) and they suddenly had a budget. So they started experimenting, by choice and by force (such as the firestorm of controversy about its depictions of humanoids).

If D&D hadn't been popularized, I think it would have kept limping along as it was from 2014-2019. A sourcebook and one or two modules per year (focused primarily on Sword Coast/Faerun). Perhaps the lower-profile would have stopped or put off the eventual changes related to humanoids for a while. Then again, maybe we'd be even more worse off and D&D would be just a logo on mugs and retro T-Shirts.

This is not really accurate. As Mike Mearls has pointed out on this forum, and many other sources corroborate, 5e was an immediate success. Personally, I think this had more to do with demographics, specifically Gen Xers having D&D-aged kids of their own and extra disposable time and income, but, eh, it's pretty hard to measure. Certainly pop culture tie-ins didn't hurt. In any case, 5e was certainly not "limping along...from 2014-2019," and there are literal receipts to prove it.

 

[Clint_L]

Sure, that's fine.

The problems arise when the "simplfied version" NPC can do things an equivalent PC of the same species etc. cannot, just because.

As long as the simplified version's capabilities remains within the borders of what's PC-possible, all is good. I do my NPC opponents this way all the time - I don't go through all the steps of rolling them up longhand but instead just assign them numbers that fall within the range of what a PC of the same class-species-level could achieve.

But they do remain within those limits - the guard captain does roughly the same damage and has the same survivability as a Level 8 fighter. I fail to see what the problem is - it it just that the captain is getting that damage from two longsword swings, rather than from all the extra stuff that PCs use to pump up their long sword swings? That's the point of simplifying it.

I just don't get the objection. Maybe the PC doesn't get double dice from a long sword swing, but the guard captain doesn't get to action surge, or add berserker damage, or crit on a 19, etc. It all comes out in the wash.

 

[Maxperson]

1e: OD&D (1974)
2e: B/X and BECMI
3e: AD&D
4e: AD&D 2nd Edition
5e: D&D 3.0
6e: D&D 3.5
7e: D&D 4th edition
8e: D&D 5th (2014)
9e: D&D 5th (2024)

It gets a little funky as Basic and Advanced existed concurrently, but they reunified in 2000.

Basic was never and is not now an edition of AD&D. 1e was the first edition of AD&D, which 2e-5.5e have followed sequentially.

 

[Maxperson]

Like most people, my "2nd favorite" edition, despite its flaws.

3e/3.5e is still my absolute favorite edition, despite it's flaws. The sheer number of classes, prestige classes, feats and skills meant that I could realize virtually any concept I could imagine without having to settle for kludging something that almost, kinda, maybe fits my vision like I have to do frequently with 5e.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

3e/3.5e is still my absolute favorite edition, despite it's flaws. The sheer number of classes, prestige classes, feats and skills meant that I could realize virtually any concept I could imagine without having to settle for kludging something that almost, kinda, maybe fits my vision like I have to do frequently with 5e.

This, I'm in agreement with.

And I think for the DM, 3.X is defined more by what you have to exclude in order to realize a vision, than by grasping at ways to make existing ideas fit.