3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[The Shaman]

Umm...there's a rule about tumbling OVER wallls? Don't remember that one. If there is one, I'd love to see it, normally I don't miss something that obvious.

Go back and re-read the MSRD description of Tumble in my earlier post.

Any time the rules go outside of what is written, I expect different interpretations, but similar ones, as I said. That's why I say that there should be as many rules as possible to minimize the situations where you have to make those decisions. The idea is that actions that are only done rarely don't need seperate rules.

First, the other approach is that instead of creating a plethora of detailed rules, teach GMs to make consistent calls based on abilities or skills or whatever mechanic generally covers the action you want to resolve - this is how slim rulebooks are made.

I'm not suggesting that one approach is better than another - I do know which one I prefer.

Second, it's the rare actions what will bring the game to a screaming halt as GM and players fumble through rulebooks - teaching GMs good skills for making those rulings quickly, along with the understanding among everyone at the table that it's the GMs role to make that ruling, are what keep the action front and center.

Right - Tumble doesn't say anything about changing heights, so therefore changing heights has no effect on Tumble. Feel free to move beyond the rules if you'd like, but there's no reason to do so.

Actually, it is addressed by the uneven terrain provision in the rules, as I believe Majoru Oakheart noted earlier, so yes, changing heights can affect the ability to Tumble.

Hell, if you feel so inclined, add a circumstance modifier - also known as the "DM's friend." Nothing says you have to, but they're there if you want to use them. Maybe this qualifies as a "+2 to the DC" kind of situation. I don't think it is, but maybe you do. That's ok - it's what it's there for. That way, you aren't even moving beyond the rules.

Once again your spotting the trees but missing the forest.

Circumstance modifiers are subject to GM fiat - in many cases so are DCs. A 3e GM may increase a DC to reflect a higher degree of difficulty for a task, as per the rules - however, this is exactly the kind of GM "control" that a number of of posters suggested was such a problem with earlier editions of D&D.

A Jump check? Please. A DC 15 Jump check allows you to take no damage from the first 10' of a fall and convert the damage from the next 10' into nonlethal, if you jump down. This is a table - it's not high enough for falling damage to enter into it.

If you think it takes a Jump check to get out of bed in the morning, feel free to add one here. Heck, you'll notice that I made an allowance that it might be a particularly tall table when I answered your question. Note also that, if for some reason, you require a Jump check to avoid the damage caused from moving from the table to the floor, you should also allow an additional Tumble check - also DC 15 - to negate the damage, as well.

Jump covers more than just avoiding falling damage - it also covers getting from one place to another safely, and it carries consequences for failure other than damage, such as falling prone for failing an untrained check. Adding the chance of falling while jumping from a table in the middle of a melee (which is quite different from falling out of bed) adds to the excitement and the challenge - make it a DC 5 check, such that it's just a formality for most characters but still makes the challenge just a little more difficult, the action a bit more intense.

For me, the rules are a tool to generate that feeling among the players. If the rules work against that, then it's the rules that need to change. If that makes me a power-mad control-freak GM, well, I'll wear that label and not lose any sleep.

For all your comments about how "The rules don't handle this," three separate DMs came up with three nearly identical answers.

I never played 2e, so I couldn't predict how such a discussion might play out. I can for Castles and Crusades however - make a Dex check and maybe a Str check if the CK is so inclined. (Didn't have to crack a book to come up with that one, either.)

You attribute the fact that our answers are simliar to 3e/d20's rules - I attribute it to the fact that we were describing a similar action. What I find amusing is that there was variance at all - for all its vaunted consistency, three different GMs had three different (though similar) rules interpretations for resolving both actions.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Go back and re-read the MSRD description of Tumble in my earlier post.

Still don't find anything that would say you could use tumble to get over a 4 foot wall using the 3.5 PHB the MSRD and the 3.5 SRD. It says it reduces falling distances and gets through and around enemies without AOO.

Circumstance modifiers are subject to GM fiat - in many cases so are DCs. A 3e GM may increase a DC to reflect a higher degree of difficulty for a task, as per the rules - however, this is exactly the kind of GM "control" that a number of of posters suggested was such a problem with earlier editions of D&D.

It's not DM fiat I have a problem with, it is the AMOUNT of it. If 1/100 times you have to make up a rule and 9/100 times you have room to "wiggle" a bit where the DC of something would be up to the DM, but likely within 2 or 4, and you are still using the same RULE, then that means 90% of the time, you are using rules that you know well because of how often they come up. It means players likely know the rules without having to ask you. It means you can quickly adjudicate them and move on.

On the other hand, in 2nd edition there was no rules at all for grappling. Everytime you suggested "I grab him", it was a grab bag to see what rule the DM came up with. Opposed attack rolls? Opposed strength check? Dex checks? Opposed attack rolls modified by your bend bar rolls? What about opposed Nonweapon Proficiency checks in some type of grappling NWP? All of these seem reasonable to me based on the rules of that game. Each one you choose opens the game up to an arguement from every player at the table who thinks that new rule is stupid or allows some really unrealistic things to happen(mages consistantly beat low dex fighters because if it is an opposed dex check, for instance). Will your DM remember the ruling next time? If they do, will they rule that since this is a HALFLING, he gets to use his dex instead of his strength? No idea, I can't predict it, so I can't be assured that I have a good chance of succeeding. So, I'd prefer just to attack normally. I know what that will do.

Jump covers more than just avoiding falling damage - it also covers getting from one place to another safely, and it carries consequences for failure other than damage, such as falling prone for failing an untrained check. Adding the chance of falling while jumping from a table in the middle of a melee (which is quite different from falling out of bed) adds to the excitement and the challenge - make it a DC 5 check, such that it's just a formality for most characters but still makes the challenge just a little more difficult, the action a bit more intense.

I don't find that in the jump description, actually. At least in the 3.5 Edition PHB. I see the skill is used for jumping on to things, over things and down from things. However, I see that it makes the 1st 10 feet of the jump nonlethal damage. If it's less than that, it doesn't do damage, no reason to roll.

Don't see any chance to fall over when jumping down from a table. You COULD go beyond the rules, but what does it prove?

It reminds me of the foreward in Combat and Tactics in 2nd Edition. It was talking about the lack of a critical miss chart and why they chose not to put one in there. The game designer commented that although some people liked the fact that there was a chance to drop your weapon or hit your party members with each swing, the fact that you gained more attacks per round as you went up levels meant that the higher level you got, the MORE chance there was to fumble. Plus, a natural 1 was a 5% chance to fail horribly each time you swung a sword. This didn't seem right unless they made the percentage so low as to be nearly insignifcant. Also, if the percent chance is so insignificant why bother rolling an extra set of dice on every attack roll for the whole game on the off chance that it happens. It eats up game time for no noticeable benefit.

So, jumping down from a table has an insignificant chance of falling over, so no rules for it in the game. No rules for it in the game, no reason to needlessly complicate the game by coming up with them.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I never played 2e, so I couldn't predict how such a discussion might play out.

There's the problem! Now I might be wrong, but isn't this thread about how it is different from 2nd Edition in terms of player/dm balance (as the only point of reference I can think of)? If you havn't played an older version of D&D then how can you make an informed statement on the relative power of players versus the DM (again without some kind of reference)? It is much more consistant than it used to be. Consistant = Players having an idea that they'll have a Tumble check between 15-20 instead of the DM pulling who knows what random ruling out of his hat, from "you automatically succeed" to "if I roll a 1 on this d20 you succeed." The player, before, could never be sure which it would be. Even if they tried the same thing twice in the same session sometimes!

 

[LostSoul]

It's up to the player. If they want to hop it, it's a Jump check. DC 16 with a running start, DC 32 from a standing position.

"Dude, are you kidding me? It's a 5' wall. You can easily prop yourself over that. I used to do that all the time playing indoor soccer and subbing on and off. Just hop over the boards. And I don't have a +22 Jump check."

Hmm. You can still get the same reaction to a DM using 3E's rules as you did back in 2e.

 

[Henry]

If you haven't played an older version of D&D then how can you make an informed statement on the relative power of players versus the DM (again without some kind of reference)?

Shaman is an OD&D and first edition veteran who skipped 2nd edition entirely, if I recall correctly. There were a LOT of former players coming back to D&D in 2000 in this same boat. (Me, I was a sucker for every edition since 1981, myself. )

 

[Henry]

From that perspective, the DM's power has been eroded. He still has all the authority he needs to do his job - he can make up rules on the fly, he can create a setting and populate it with NPCs, he can set house rules, change the monsters, make a snap decision to keep the game going, run low-magic campaigns, disallow anything he feels to be unsuitable for his campaign, etc. However, what he cannot do is to avoid being judged by his players, and they have a much better basis of doing so because of the clearer, more consistent rules, and forums such as ENWorld which let them know that other DMs are doing it differently. And if he doesn't measure up, he's out of a job.

In my case, I've ALWAYS had the occasional player wanting to twist the rules -- the guy who wanted to be a dark elf so he could brew sleep poison, the guy who tried to convince me that the Oriental Adventures martial arts Tae Kwan Do style (1st ed. AD&D) would allow him to break bones and cause penalties, the lady who wanted to use Spot instead of search because "that's the way her old group did it" -- but what we DMs don't have is a rule that says "If the Archmage PrC combined with the spellcasting prodigy Feat and a +5 headband of intellect allows save DC's in the 40's, the DM has the authority to refuse to allow one or more parts of it in his game."

Now, people frequently quote "Rule 0", but does it say that REALLY? Step 0 says, "Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules." This is only in regards to creating a character, and by inference you can say it applies to in-game rules and situations that crop up after character creation, but some players may be willing to argue that.

I KNOW I have the authority, and my current players KNOW that I have this authority, but try telling that to CRPG players raised on Diablo, Warcraft, or KOTOR alone. (I love all three of those games and have played them fanatically in the past, so it's not "game hate" it's taking the conventions of that genre and assuming they must apply in another that bugs me).

To answer an earlier point raised by Henry, I don't think any open-ended rules set can ever do without a DM because it is practically impossible to be comprehensive enough to cover everything that creative players can come up with.

I am afraid that if D&D continues in this path, WotC will find that the answer to this problem is, "then get rid of the DM and the open-ended ruleset." It's the biggest hindrance left in making RPG's more universally appealing.

 

[LostSoul]

I KNOW I have the authority, and my current players KNOW that I have this authority

Which is presicely why you have that authority. The players give it to you. If you take some other people who won't give you that level of authority - looking to the rulebooks instead - you aren't going to have it. Group dynamics and all that.

 

[Henry]

Which is presicely why you have that authority. The players give it to you. If you take some other people who won't give you that level of authority - looking to the rulebooks instead - you aren't going to have it. Group dynamics and all that.

Which is why I am concerned for the future of new DMs as well as the future of the game as a whole, and why I quote Mearls in the first place.

In truth, I'm not sure why I'm concerned; In 40 or 50 years' time, the state of the game will be irrelevant to me, anyway.

 

[Sholari]

The five failures of WOTC...

1) Failure to adequately support DMs with tools and time-saving material with an edition that is quite a bit more difficult to administer. When you neglect your DMs eventually you will have less people running the game. Declining DM base will lead to an eventual decline in player base. My recommendation is to provide a better infrastructure through a lower cost channel, but make sure it is quality material. The WOTC website just doesn't cut it.

2) Failure to make the system accessible to next generation of players and actively recruit new players into the game. Eventually new forms of enterainment such as computer games and online games will continue to eat away at the D&D market. The new D&D Basic Set has not been very successful in bringing new players into the business.

3) Failure be leader in supporting group formation, retail channels, and other RPG community infrastructure. Facilitating game formation and purchase decision making will also hinder the market, especially new gamers entering the market.

4) Failure to translate the intellectucal capital of table top games to the computer medium. The decision to move from Black Isle Studios to Infogrames was a really bad one. Black Isle understood gaming and how to successfully design a roleplaying game for the computer. A lot of the stuff that Infogrames has been in charge of is really subpar.

5) Failure to understand relationship marketing and how it could be effectively used as a tool for bringing new gamers into the business. The lifetime value of the average gamer is enormous and yet the opportunity to leverage relationship marketing at a tool has been largely ignored.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, it is addressed by the uneven terrain provision in the rules, as I believe Majoru Oakheart noted earlier, so yes, changing heights can affect the ability to Tumble.Once again your spotting the trees but missing the forest.

Actually, I think he's referring to this table:

Surface Is . . . DC Modifier
Lightly obstructed (scree, light rubble, shallow bog1, undergrowth) +2
Severely obstructed (natural cavern floor, dense rubble, dense undergrowth) +5
Lightly slippery (wet floor) +2
Severely slippery (ice sheet) +5
Sloped or angled +2
1 Tumbling is impossible in a deep bog.

I don't see an entry for "uneven terrain." Accordingly, you might decide that it counts as "Lightly Obstructed," or perhaps "Sloped or Angled," which ... Shock and amazement on my part ... both carry a modifier of +2 to the DC.

In other words, it's exactly in line with my earlier suggestion that Tumbling off of a table might warrant a +2 DM's friend circumstance modifier to the DC.

But again, and to turn your own words back on you, "you're missing the forest for the trees."

We're arguing about whether the DC is 15 or 17 - which, for most characters, is not a material difference. For the most part, either a character has no ranks in Tumble - in which case, they can't do this at all - or they've devoted a number of skill points to it, in which case the 2 point move isn't going to change the probability of success by a lot.

And we're still using the same mechanic, the same skill, and roughly the same modifiers.

Repeat that with me: We're arguing about whether the Tumble DC is 15 or 17 (or 25 or 27, depending on the route chosen). We're not arguing about whether the PC can do it at all, what mechanic we should use, what ability score should modify this thing, etc. We're 98% in agreement about who can do this and how hard this should be to do (a reasonably trained and naturally-gifted 1st-level character should be able to pull it off every time when he's under no particular pressure and ~50% of the time in combat). We are arguing minutiae.

This is an important distinction between 3E and every other edition of D&D.

Jump covers more than just avoiding falling damage - it also covers getting from one place to another safely, and it carries consequences for failure other than damage, such as falling prone for failing an untrained check.

It covers jumping from one place to another safely, and it carries consquences for failed checks and some successful ones like falling prone.

What's the DC to hop down from a table without falling? The nearest thing the rules have to say about this is the DC 15 check to jump down 10' or more. If it's less than 10', then there's no check required in the rules, because there's nothing that happens in the rules at less than 10'. At 10' or more, a failed check or a successful untrained check which doesn't beat DC 20 results in you landing prone.

Other than that, why add to the rules burden?

Adding the chance of falling while jumping from a table in the middle of a melee (which is quite different from falling out of bed)

Slight difference - I mentioned getting out of bed in the morning. Beds are, occasionally, the same height as tables.

adds to the excitement and the challenge - make it a DC 5 check, such that it's just a formality for most characters but still makes the challenge just a little more difficult, the action a bit more intense.

Does it make it more intense? It makes it so that anyone with an armor check penalty in excess of their strength fails more than 50% of the time when hopping down from a table and lands on their butt.

I can for Castles and Crusades however - make a Dex check and maybe a Str check if the CK is so inclined. (Didn't have to crack a book to come up with that one, either.)

And what's the TN?

You attribute the fact that our answers are simliar to 3e/d20's rules - I attribute it to the fact that we were describing a similar action.

And I say that you're wrong, and we're, for nearly all intents and purposes, providing identical answers.

You would not have such agreement under any other version of the D&D rules.