D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[iserith]

If you're just going to tell everyone else they are wrong, why did you even ask? It's quite clear you're not looking for input, you're looking for confirmation.

I'm not telling everyone else they are "wrong." I'm asking how they perceive it, what objections they have to it, whether they think it's based in the rules, whether they'd receive it better as an offer rather than straight DM call, etc. In short, I'm asking for everyone's preferences, making no judgment of them, because preferences cannot be right or wrong.

This example didn't come from my game and won't, though I'm not averse to using "Success at a Cost." I made it up to get input from the community about the approach. Thus, I am not seeking confirmation either.

I can tell you that the results are different at level 5 than they are at level 1. At level 1, if my DM decides to play with rules only he knows about, and my character dies, I would be annoyed and frustrated. At level 5, it's only a little extra damage, so it ends up being more fun than folly.

On the flip side, if the DM told you about "Success at a Cost," you'd be okay with dying at level 1 as a result of it?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Mechanics-wise: Fighter wins initiative and attacks. The attack roll is a miss. DM rules "Success at a Cost" (DMG, pg. 242) - fighter can do weapon dice damage, but takes an attack from the orc using the orc's reaction. Orc's turn is up next.

The orc having a PC class or a readied action is not mentioned in the example. Does this make it fine or not fine in your view?

The "Success at a Cost" option wasn't specified in the original post from what I could tell. As long as the player is aware that rule is in effect, and can use it themselves (so the orc misses and the PC can counterattack, too), then no problem.

 

[iserith]

The "Success at a Cost" option wasn't specified in the original post from what I could tell. As long as the player is aware that rule is in effect, and can use it themselves (so the orc misses and the PC can counterattack, too), then no problem.

"Success at a Cost" only refers to it being used when players miss an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw by 1 or 2. As such, as written, it only applies to characters, not monsters.

What are your thoughts on that?

 

[Kikuras]

On the flip side, if the DM told you about "Success at a Cost," you'd be okay with dying at level 1 as a result of it?

The example in the book describes a situation where the missed attack is a success but the cost is being disarmed. Being disarmed is annoying, but the fighter can draw another weapon, or move to pick up the one he dropped. You describe a situation where the attack is a partial success (no ability modifier), and the trade off is a free attack by the orc. So the question becomes, "what is the appropriate exchange rate of success instead of failure?" It seems to me that the book's example is a little light, I'd make that trade all day long. On the other hand, knowing that an orc can kill me in one hit, I wouldn't want to make a trade that allowed him an extra hit on me, especially if it means two in a row.

So as a player, if I am familiar with what it says under 'Success at a Cost', then I'm met with what you'd described, I'd be frustrated if my character died. Now if before the game you say you're going to use 'Success at a Cost' rules, but you warn the costs are going to be a lot more punishing, then if my character died, I'd be a lot more accepting...

...Of course I probably also wouldn't play a melee class, and I would definitely have a shield, but that's just me.

 

[neobolts]

I can tell you that the results are different at level 5 than they are at level 1. At level 1, if my DM decides to play with rules only he knows about, and my character dies, I would be annoyed and frustrated. At level 5, it's only a little extra damage, so it ends up being more fun than folly.

Good point! Let's do another "what if" and assume our fighter is a new player. This could get frustrating fast. Even if the core books encourage you to experiment with playing fast and loose with with the rules to build excitement, it doesn't do new players any favors if they are trying to learn to game.

 

[neobolts]

Could be either of those. Or that he or she just read page 242 of the DMG and decided to give "Success at a Cost" a try.

Interestingly, in that section on Resolution and Consequences, it says, "As a DM, you have a variety of flourishes and approaches you can take when adjudicating success and failure to make things a little less black-and-white." It seems like many objections to the example in this thread come down to not wanting things less "black-and-white." Another objection seems to be that the rules should treat characters and monsters the same way, when that's just not the case with at least this particular approach (and other bits of the rules, I'm sure).

I think this thread is boiling down to balancing two (sometimes competing) DM duties:
1) Changing it up a bit to make things interesting (riffing off of the rules)
2) Providing consistent structure to make things reliable (sticking to the rules)

 

[iserith]

The example in the book describes a situation where the missed attack is a success but the cost is being disarmed. Being disarmed is annoying, but the fighter can draw another weapon, or move to pick up the one he dropped. You describe a situation where the attack is a partial success (no ability modifier), and the trade off is a free attack by the orc. So the question becomes, "what is the appropriate exchange rate of success instead of failure?" It seems to me that the book's example is a little light, I'd make that trade all day long. On the other hand, knowing that an orc can kill me in one hit, I wouldn't want to make a trade that allowed him an extra hit on me, especially if it means two in a row.

As I mentioned to Saelorn upthread, the example I wrote is arguably not the best fit for the goals of the "Success at a Cost" approach which suggests DMs "try to make them obstacles and setbacks that change the nature of the adventuring situation. In exchange for success, players must consider new ways of facing the challenge."

But in any case it seems like you're okay with the approach provided you're given a choice to make the trade or not. A lot of other posters seem to be okay with that, too.

...Of course I probably also wouldn't play a melee class, and I would definitely have a shield, but that's just me.

"Success at a Cost" just as easily applies to ranged characters as well.

 

[iserith]

Good point! Let's do another "what if" and assume our fighter is a new player. This could get frustrating fast. Even if the core books encourage you to experiment with playing fast and loose with with the rules to build excitement, it doesn't do new players any favors if they are trying to learn to game.

I don't see using "Success at a Cost" as "playing fast and loose with the rules." I see it as just another flourish or approach when narrating the result of an adventurer's action.

I think this thread is boiling down to balancing two (sometimes competing) DM duties:
1) Changing it up a bit to make things interesting (riffing off of the rules)
2) Providing consistent structure to make things reliable (sticking to the rules)

I think another way of looking at it - and this is borne out by people thinking it's okay for ability checks and not for attack rolls - is that "Success at a Cost" brings all pillars of the game in line with the basic conversation of the game outlined on Page 3 of the Basic Rules.

In other words, why are we suddenly "playing a different game" when the swords come out? Why can ability check failures result in "progress combined with a setback" with little or no objection, but for combat we demand that things are more "black and white?" I wonder if this is related to the stakes. Few would expect to die from a botched ability check. An attack roll, however...

Food for thought.

 

[neobolts]

I think another way of looking at it - and this is borne out by people thinking it's okay for ability checks and not for attack rolls - is that "Success at a Cost" brings all pillars of the game in line with the basic conversation of the game outlined on Page 3 of the Basic Rules.

In other words, why are we suddenly "playing a different game" when the swords come out? Why can ability check failures result in "progress combined with a setback" with little or no objection, but for combat we demand that things are more "black and white?" I wonder if this is related to the stakes. Few would expect to die from a botched ability check. An attack roll, however...

Food for thought.

Oo! Fun topic! I think that's a keen observation. Our group certainly has this distinction, and I think it stems almost purely from player perceptions (rather than the stakes). Our brains shift from storytellers to wargamers and the desire for structure comes roaring in. It's pretty ingrained, so it explains the resistance to change.

 

[ExploderWizard]

"Success at a Cost" only refers to it being used when players miss an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw by 1 or 2. As such, as written, it only applies to characters, not monsters.

What are your thoughts on that?

I will agree with Gary on this issue. ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK.

Your character is not special. The universe is indifferent to your character's death or survival. The only thing between your character becoming monster poop is YOU.

Thus no rules that treat PC as special widdle snowflakes.