D&D 5E 5/30 Q&A: Charm, Chases, and Combat Free

[Gorgoroth]

Thing is, though, if your spells fizzle when an enemy hits you, then placing spells higher in initiative order makes them more powerful. Of course, in the 1-6 system, with magic at the end, that's relative to your own actions, so presumably you're only doing melee or magic in one round. Re-rolling each round was a terrific way to add some terror / excitement to "when will the mage's spells go off?" If I'd rolled initiative before declaring what I was doing, and I rolled low, I wouldn't risk losing my big gun spells that round. If the initiative order stays the same throughout combat, you're more likely to see hoarding of powerful spells in one combat, vs another. I like the idea of round-by-round initiative, and declaring which spells will be cast at the beginning of combat also helped make casters' power much more limited compared to 3e (4e's solution was just to make magic weak-sauce, i.e. you were much better off with a second ranger than any controller in your party, b/c killing stuff faster was taken away from wizards, and given to rangers, and controlling enemies' position is also weaker than chopping them to pieces).

I'm all for a new initiative system, but now that I recall how challenging it was to play my evoker in 2e, I can't help but think they made it too simple. I didn't like declaring my actions at the start of the round, because how do you react to what's happening around you? All you could do is say "I'm no longer doing that, or just targetting a different foe. Anything more complex than that, you'd have to wait till next round). Fighters never had that problem.

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, having run some great chase scenes and investigations (using adopted rules, not DM fiat), my understanding is that there is a unique appeal to these kinds of scenes. For example, while using the exploration rules/guidelines, players are feeding their curiosity about what lies around the next corridor or across the next overland hex. Exploration is not mainly about tactics/strategy (combat), negotiating (interaction), solving puzzles with clues (investigation), using terrain (chases), creating an elaborate plan and adapting to complications (heists), etc. Its mainly about discovery thru decisions and dice-rolling. This is distinguished from an investigation where gathering the clues isnt that main challenge - the main challenge is in interpreting those clues, resolving seeming impossibilities, and deducing what really happened, who is responsible, etc.

What mechanics should govern the interpretation of clues? And how would they differ from, say, INT checks where the DM elucidates the discoveries that the PC's uncover?

Solving puzzles is something that happens regularly in dungeon exploration. Using terrain is something that happens regularly in combat. Creating elaborate plans and dealing with the fallout and the changes is something that happens regularly in any adventure.

I think I'm on board, here, I'm just not sure these mechanics are actually as distinct as you may be giving them credit for.

 

[Quickleaf]

What mechanics should govern the interpretation of clues? And how would they differ from, say, INT checks where the DM elucidates the discoveries that the PC's uncover?

Solving puzzles is something that happens regularly in dungeon exploration. Using terrain is something that happens regularly in combat. Creating elaborate plans and dealing with the fallout and the changes is something that happens regularly in any adventure.

I think I'm on board, here, I'm just not sure these mechanics are actually as distinct as you may be giving them credit for.

I don't consider the mechanics needed to be any more distinct than the ones for Exploration and Interaction in the playtest. IOW more guidelines than hard rules. The current playtest does not give DMs sufficient guidelines/tools to handle such scenes, which is why I brought the topic up.

My view is that if I want to run a successful chase or investigation scene, then the core D&D books should empower me to do that and provide any player-side tools needed. I shouldn't have to refer to other games and read several online blogs in order to piece together a system that allows me to do this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

IOW more guidelines than hard rules. The current playtest does not give DMs sufficient guidelines/tools to handle such scenes, which is why I brought the topic up.

Yeah, I'm on board with guidelines. Not even sure they need to be full modules or pillars, though, more just "things that DMs are probably going to want to be able to do that would be neat to know how to do."

Heck, if all they do is grab the complex skill check/skill challenge idea and show you how to use it in a few ways, that might be enough to start out with. Heck, for some DMs coming from 4e, that's ALREADY enough.

 

[pemerton]

Chases are just fundamentally uninteresting.

I don't think this is true at all. They are a staple of genre movies - especially, but not only, the car chase. They also feature in genre fiction (Sherlock Holmes chases villains in boats on the Thames, Ringwraiths chase the Hobbits through the Shire, etc).

To the extent that they are uninteresting in D&D, this is a sign of poor mechanical implementation.

The issue with chases is that they really depend very heavily on having a prepared environment

<snip>

it really does require that the DM be prepared.

If this is true, then the mechanics will fail.

Combat doesn't require the GM to be prepared - you drop in half-a-dozen gnolls, sketch out your room with a table, a firepit and a portcullis-and-winch at the other end, and things are good to go. Chases, if they are to work, need to be equally easy to implement.

There are plenty of mechanical examples from other RPGs that show how this can be done.

IHowever, having run some great chase scenes and investigations (using adopted rules, not DM fiat), my understanding is that there is a unique appeal to these kinds of scenes.

Agreed.

I have run chases in 4e and used the skill challenge mechanics to do so. There are plenty of alternative mechanical systems possible too (eg various forms of opposed roll).

Good chase mechanics (i) encourage the GM to narrate obstacles/opportunities (most obviously terrain) that the players can then exploit for advantage in the chase, and (ii) create a sense of anticipation at the possibility of escape (either by the PCs or their quarry) vs getting caught. I think (ii) means that some random element is required - which already makes the combat rules, with their stop-motion action and their fixed movement rates unsuitable.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't think this is true at all. They are a staple of genre movies - especially, but not only, the car chase. They also feature in genre fiction (Sherlock Holmes chases villains in boats on the Thames, Ringwraiths chase the Hobbits through the Shire, etc).

They can be visually interesting, but they're not at all interesting in terms of roleplaying. "What do you do?" "I try to chase him down." "Well, he's also trying to get away." "Damn."

 

[JamesonCourage]

They can be visually interesting, but they're not at all interesting in terms of roleplaying. "What do you do?" "I try to chase him down." "Well, he's also trying to get away." "Damn."

And then checks are rolled, and tension is built, as players wait to see if they can complete their actions, or if they fail. Kind of like combat, skills, etc.

At least, that's my experience with chases. As always, play what you like

 

[GX.Sigma]

And then checks are rolled, and tension is built, as players wait to see if they can complete their actions, or if they fail. Kind of like combat, skills, etc.

At least, that's my experience with chases. As always, play what you like

In my experience, adding extraneous die rolls to situations with no tension does not create tension. It creates boredom. :\

 

[JamesonCourage]

In my experience, adding extraneous die rolls to situations with no tension does not create tension. It creates boredom. :\

Extraneous? It's there to resolve the situation, like combat rolls, skill rolls, etc.

No tension? The players want to succeed, and don't know if they will. The tension exists because of the uncertainty of the die rolls plus the stakes involved in the scene; after all, they want to chase this guy or escape from him, so the context implies that it's important to them.

If your group doesn't have a reason to run, and you don't offer them a way to ramp up the tension, I would assume that's why it's failed for you, but I don't know your players / your game well enough to say that for sure. I can only say what's worked for me and my players, and why that is. As always, play what you like

 

[Warbringer]

They can be visually interesting, but they're not at all interesting in terms of roleplaying. "What do you do?" "I try to chase him down." "Well, he's also trying to get away." "Damn."

But why is he trying to get away. Get away to where? What happens when he gets there? If the party lose him, how can they find him?

Combat is easy: consequence hp loss, resource use and possibly death. The outcomes make it exciting, the dice rolls create a big chunk of the tension, but you're right, just rolling to roll completely breaks immersion.

That's why I'm a huge fan the skill challenge system (with a few mods). As DM I set the success targets, a duration or fixed number of checks (for early, mid and late chase), identify the skills I consider "appropriate", let the players offer other skills that may be appropriate (along with modifiers - wearing armor, on foot vs mount, knowledge of terrain, obstacles), describe success outcomes and failure consequences ... and off we go, narrating the whole damn chase and rolling dice.


It really becomes a free form session with the characters hollering out what their characters are doing in pretty rich detail (to rationalize their skill choice), and its fun.

Yes its abstract, no move 7 vs move 8, Works a charm, not a grid or map insight