D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[iserith]

I'm just going to leave this here...

That goes without saying and still smells of an assumption being made about whether the DM in the example had the buy-in of his players to adjudicate in that fashion.

 

[Thyrwyn]

1. I didn't make up or change a rule. I applied a resolution method from the DMG. As previously stated, it might be more interesting to have another setback instead or to offer it as a choice, but that's easily remedied. The larger point stands.

You have given no reason why said resolution mechanic was used instead of the mechanic specifically designed and written for exactly this situation. There is nothing in the proposed scenario that would indicate that THIS situation called for DM fiat (written down or not, that's what this is). Please provide chapter and verse (aka "show your work") which the DM can point to that is something other than "The DM thought this would be more interesting." Because, if there is no specific, written rule specifying that in THIS situation this, different ruling makes more sense, it is just the DM acting on a whim. Also, It is nice to see you take ownership - much more honest than the "I have no vested interest - I'm just asking a question..." stance. FYI Use just the information provided in the example scenario.

2. Math nerds disagree on whether it's a bad deal for the fighter.

Is that supposed to be an insult? We're discussing rules to a TTRPG in an online forum. We're all nerds. I happen to be a math nerd, a language/grammar nerd, a film nerd, a sci fi/fantasy nerd, and an RPG nerd. Please illustrate (aka "show your work") where we "math nerds" disagree.

3. It is not established in the example whether or not the DM said they are applying Success at a Cost. For all we know, the DM uses it frequently and the players in the example love it. I think a lot of people are seeing things only through the lens of their bias with regard to this point.

How the DM and the Players in the example feel is completely irrelevant at your request:

What do you think of this DM's ruling? Do the rules support such a ruling? How would you take it if you were playing the fighter? Would you prefer to be given a choice of missing outright or doing damage but opening yourself up to a reaction attack? What if the fighter missed by more than two?

You didn't ask us how the hypothetical DM and players felt. You asked what we thought and how we felt. We told you. Now your telling us we are wrong, biased, and have accused some of us (you did not specify who) of having an "agenda".

 

[iserith]

You have given no reason why said resolution mechanic was used instead of the mechanic specifically designed and written for exactly this situation. There is nothing in the proposed scenario that would indicate that THIS situation called for DM fiat (written down or not, that's what this is). Please provide chapter and verse (aka "show your work") which the DM can point to that is something other than "The DM thought this would be more interesting." Because, if there is no specific, written rule specifying that in THIS situation this, different ruling makes more sense, it is just the DM acting on a whim. Also, It is nice to see you take ownership - much more honest than the "I have no vested interest - I'm just asking a question..." stance. FYI Use just the information provided in the example scenario.

"Success at a Cost," DMG, page 242. I'm not sure what you mean by taking ownership. "I" was a shorthand in what you quoted in response to that particular poster. A more accurate response on my part might have been "I didn't make up or change a rule. The DM in the example applied a resolution method from the DMG. I could have written a better example." This is not an example that is in my game or planned to be in my game as previously stated.

Is that supposed to be an insult? We're discussing rules to a TTRPG in an online forum. We're all nerds. I happen to be a math nerd, a language/grammar nerd, a film nerd, a sci fi/fantasy nerd, and an RPG nerd. Please illustrate (aka "show your work") where we "math nerds" disagree.

No, I use "math nerds" as a term of endearment. They possess a skill I do not have and I respect them for it. I'm just a nerd in other ways. Some math nerds on WotC disagree with what other math nerds on enworld say about the tradeoff.

You didn't ask us how the hypothetical DM and players felt. You asked what we thought and how we felt. We told you. Now your telling us we are wrong, biased, and have accused some of us (you did not specify who) of having an "agenda".

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying your assertions are based on assumptions that are not actually a part of the example. I also said to be sure you mention your assumptions in the original post if you're going to make assertions based on them.

The "agenda" to which I was referring were playstyle agendas - a GNS distinction.

Given your last, I think we're at a point where you're reading into things about what I'm saying. Perhaps its best we leave off, at least you and me.

 

[Thyrwyn]

That goes without saying and still smells of an assumption being made about whether the DM in the example had the buy-in of his players to adjudicate in that fashion.

1. Said buy-in was not specified - and is completely irrelevant. You asked what we thought and how we would feel.
2.Since we are on the subject: Please walk me through the process whereby the DM gets that buy in from the players. Please be specific. What language does the DM use? This may require a new thread, if you choose.
2a. Please remember that my objection to the ruling was that it took agency away from the player.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I believe that D&D's combat rules came out of miniature war games, and as a result are very fictionally abstract. No one is going to spend the time to narrate the actions of every spearman on the line! Because of that, D&D has never made the details of what your character does important to combat resolution: "I attack with my greatsword" is all you need to say. This is by design, as far as I can tell; out of combat you describe how exactly you open or find that secret door, but in combat you don't. It puts the focus of the game on exploration, one of the reasons XP for GP works well. Once you start asking or providing more detail the combat system begins to break down: called shots, damage on a miss, breaking bones and otherwise maiming characters, etc.

Exploration and social interaction has always been more fictionally concrete: you can describe exactly what your PC is doing and the DM can narrate the results.

Well said! I like the cut of your jib!

 

[iserith]

I don't think the combat rules break down when a player provides more detail or goes outside of what amounts to "I swing my sword." If one looks at the rules as tools that come into play as the DM adjudicates uncertain actions, then it plays no differently than any of the other pillars. On a called shot, for example, the DM and player work out the specific goal and the DM decides if it succeeds, fails, or is uncertain, applying mechanics as needed. What I think would be unfortunate to hear from the DM would be "You can't do that - there are no 'called shots' in this game."

Me personally, I almost never choose to "just" swing my sword or try to "activate" specific class features or the like when I'm playing a character. I'm always looking at the environment and the situation and trying to figure out something cool and effective to do, leaving it to the DM to work out what mechanics need apply. I think my folk hero fighter, Butch Uprise, has used his battleaxe about four times total over the last four levels. I'm always trying more interesting things that swinging my ax around. My DM is fair and I trust her, so I don't feel like I have to use the rules as a shield to make sure I can accomplish what I want to get done.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

There are no called shots in the game as written AFAIK, and with the abstract AC and HP mechanics I don't think such things would work at all. Others may find a way they enjoy but that's the beauty of a tabletop RPG.

 

[iserith]

There are no called shots in the game as written AFAIK, and with the abstract AC and HP mechanics I don't think such things would work at all. Others may find a way they enjoy but that's the beauty of a tabletop RPG.

Not to turn it into a whole debate on called shots, but it's really just a matter of the player clearly stating his or her goal and approach. What is the player trying to have his character accomplish and how does he or she set about doing it? Often it's to do extra damage, slow or blind an enemy, or the like. That's all pretty easy stuff to adjudicate fairly to make it situationally beneficial, but not always better than something else like a straight-up attack.

I recall a recent session of mine where a hezrou demon was about to seal two PCs inside a chamber (with a locking manhole cover, effectively) while it went after another two PCs that were approaching. The halfling rogue had a handful of needles that he had found in the room at the time the demon showed up. Initiative was rolled and I said that if anyone can hit the demon before its turn was up, it'd drop the seal. So the rogue beat the thing in initiative and threw needles in its face with the intent to blind it. I ruled it as an improvised weapon attack at disadvantage that, on a hit, would blind the demon until the start of the rogue's next turn, but did no damage. He rolled and hit, the demon dropped the seal and was blinded. An epic battle followed and nobody has been trying to "spam" called shots to the eyes as a result, nor have the combat rules "broken down."

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Yeah I can see things like try to knock something from a foes hands or the like, blind them is a bit more tricky for me. The thing is I wouldn't blame a player for "abusing" blind if it is standard allowable action, any decent player IMO would be foolish not to take advantage of that mechanic. Play styles and all that. I hate the 3e/4e max your build game design but in combat I expect my players to be the most effective they can be.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Do you overtly ask to make checks?

As the DM, I ask for a check when the resolution of an action is uncertain. A player was looking for something suspicious on a bookshelf, so I asked for an Investigation check to notice the hidden switch, which failed. Another player started pulling all of the books from the shelf, which automatically triggered the switch, so no check was needed.

As a player, I don't usually ask for a check, unless I think that the DM has forgotten about a relevant ability that might make the difference between whether or not a check was allowed. If I say that I'm a dwarf, so it makes sense that I should have above-average exposure to gems, then that might convince the DM that calling for a check is the more appropriate course of resolution.

That's very much a specific-DM issue, though. In general, it's the DM's place to ask for a check, but my particular DM likes to remind us that there's no way he can possibly keep track of all of our character-specific abilities, so we should remind him whenever it might matter.

If you lie to the king, do you expect that because you lied it necessarily demands a Charisma (Deception) check?

Particularly with Deception, I would expect a check to be required every time (unless my bonus to the check was high enough that it couldn't possibly fail to beat the king's passive Insight). There's always a chance that you could fail, because your ability to deceive hinges upon the king's ability to be deceived.

And even if there might be some sort of unusual circumstances going on, where no check would be needed, it would very-much be a one-off in-game reason for it. Maybe the king is an illusion, or being dominated, or something else. I would expect to be asked to roll in any case, so as to not spoil the effect.

For something like Athletics, Sleight of Hand, or any of the knowledge-type Intelligence skills, I wouldn't expect that a check should always be necessary. Sometimes the wall is so easy to climb that no check is necessary. A check is not necessary when there is no chance of success or failure - when the DC is so low that you cannot fail it by rolling a 1, or so high that a 20 will not let you succeed. There are walls that would need a Athletics check at DC 0 to climb, but there is no king with a passive Insight of 0.

If you say you attack, do you automatically make an attack roll without prompting?

If I don't roll, the DM will prompt me to roll. If I consistently don't roll after declaring an attack, the DM is likely to become upset since I'm wasting time in a situation where everyone clearly knows what is expected. Everyone knows the rules for combat. They are extremely cut-and-dried, with very little room for DM intervention.

Let's say you lie to the king, the DM calls for a Charisma (Deception) check and you blow that check by one or two. The DM narrates the outcome as: "The king appears to believe you, but his corrupt yet wise council adviser eyes you coldly and whispers something to his page who leaves the room immediately without looking at you. What do you do?"

It sounds like my check was high enough to beat the king's passive Insight, but not high enough to beat his adviser's Insight. This is one of the obvious outcomes, and I would probably attempt to act on my Deception before the adviser could advise the king to not listen to me (depending on the circumstances of my Deception, of course).

I'll assume that was just a bad example on your part, though. A better example would be failing by one or two, so the king isn't sure if he completely trusts you, and he'll finance your endeavor but also wants to send his loyal henchman along to supervise. That's an outcome between clear success and failure, and it's something I would be more likely to accept since there were so many possible outcomes anyway.

Although Deception does have a binary outcome - either he believes me, or he doesn't - there's no saying what he'll do with that outcome. He can believe me, but still not want to help me because of blah blah politics whatever; or he can not believe me, but help me anyway because he has some ulterior motive that we don't even suspect. The practical outcomes are all over the board. I don't think I know what's going to happen (with any great certainty), so I can't have that expectation broken.

Contrast with combat, and its extremely precise rules, where we know exactly that succeeding on this attack check means the orc takes 4-11 damage which progresses her x% toward unconsciousness or death. I think I know what's going to happen, and that there's a zero percent chance of injuring my teammate or being disarmed, so breaking that expectation feels like a violation of the game rules - of how I think the world works.