D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[LostSoul]

"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?

My thought is that you could get pretty radical with that and cut out initiative and NPC turns. That would be a major hack though.

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.

I think it's because D&D combat is very abstract, while ability checks (especially in 5E, for various reasons) are generally more grounded in what the characters are doing in the game world. Combat is based around this level of abstraction, so when you start tying resolution to detailed actions the combat system begins to break down.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Notably, the "Success at a Cost" resolution method only refers to "characters," not "NPCs" or "monsters." One wonders if that is that is intentionally one-sided. It sure seems like it.

NPCs are characters. It's in the name.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

If you want combat not to be "playing a different game" you just have to fix the way initiative works. Attack rolls work exactly the same in and out of combat (e.g. shooting a deer for food, shooting a lever to depress it from a distance). The distinctive feature of combat is the action economy which discretizes narrative into rounds and turns based on initiative. Other than that it's exactly like non-combat.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

NPCs are characters. It's in the name.

N.P.C. It's in the naaaame.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Is it really arbitrary though? It's based on a method that exists in the game system which is also supported by "How to Play," and reasonably fits the context of the fiction. I don't believe it is based on random choice or personal whim.

It's not arbitrary that you could succeed at a cost (although whether or not that option actually comes up does seem to be entirely arbitrary). I don't think that's the real objection here, though. The part that seems to be in contention is the arbitrary selection as to the nature of the setback.

If you barely miss your attack, you could just miss, or you could hit and die in return, or you could hit and be disarmed or knocked prone, or you could hit but you break your potion, or you could hit and accidentally trip an ally. There's just no sense of causality between the action and the result of that action, so the outcome seems arbitrary. Especially if you "just attack" the orc, there's no way to reasonably line up any of those outcomes to correspond to such an abstract action.

A way that you could do it, and not seem quite as arbitrary, would be to ask the player to describe the attack in more detail. If the player describes a running leap at the orc, then a setback could be that you fall prone, and it wouldn't seem arbitrary since it's following from the narrative. Being disarmed would follow more naturally if you try to lunge past the orc's shield.

"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?

My thoughts are that any rule which treats the PCs differently from the monsters is something to be avoided. There are situations where it might be a trade-off, and the benefit outweighs that cost - such as using simple stats for NPCs, rather than full write-ups - but this doesn't qualify for me.

I can see how others might see it differently, though, depending on how you weigh the virtues of interesting choices or unpredictable combats.

 

[iserith]

My thought is that you could get pretty radical with that and cut out initiative and NPC turns. That would be a major hack though.

I've run scenes without initiative before. Like any other ability check, initiative is just there for when who goes first, second, third, etc. is in doubt. There have been cases where that wasn't in doubt because of the way things went in the scene.

I think it's because D&D combat is very abstract, while ability checks (especially in 5E, for various reasons) are generally more grounded in what the characters are doing in the game world. Combat is based around this level of abstraction, so when you start tying resolution to detailed actions the combat system begins to break down.

I think that the game could be run, and run well, by handling actions the same regardless of "in combat" or "out of combat." I don't even think it would add much in the way of time to the scene though that is a practical consideration worth noting.

 

[iserith]

NPCs are characters. It's in the name.

Before I posted what you quoted, I flipped through the books and noticed how in almost all cases that I saw that "character" referred to "player character." And I only say "almost all" to leave the door open to the idea that I might have missed where that wasn't the case. I'm fairly confident, however, that there is no strict definition of "character" and "monster" in the rules; however, taken in context, "character" refers only to "player character." Of course, this is not to say a DM couldn't narrate the outcome of a monster's action in the wake of a failed attack roll or ability check any way he or she likes.

 

[Schmoe]

I used to do something similar back in the day with critical fumbles. Depending on the situation, sometimes a fumble would cause a dropped weapon, or a fall to prone, or a penalty to AC, etc. I abandoned it when we moved to 3e and started using a grid more. It allowed me to interject some chaos and interesting situations onto combats, but it was capricious and sometimes frustrating to the players. I wonder, though, if this type of thing fits more naturally into theater-of-the-mind combats instead of grid combats.

 

[LostSoul]

If you want combat not to be "playing a different game" you just have to fix the way initiative works. Attack rolls work exactly the same in and out of combat (e.g. shooting a deer for food, shooting a lever to depress it from a distance). The distinctive feature of combat is the action economy which discretizes narrative into rounds and turns based on initiative. Other than that it's exactly like non-combat.

I don't think that's true: players don't have the same ability to define precisely what their PC is doing in combat. If you shoot a lever to depress it from a distance, roll above the DC, and the DM says, "You hit and your arrow barely grazes the lever", that would strike me as an odd ruling. If you shoot an orc in the eye, roll above its AC, and the DM says, "You hit and your arrow barely grazes its cheek" (assuming the hit doesn't kill the orc), that seems par for the course. The abstract combat system means that you don't really know what your PC is trying to do until you roll the d20 and subtract HP; otherwise you get oddities around damage dealt, hits being misses, and the action economy.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

"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?

Minor point of contention - characters are either player characters, or non-player characters. That's what the "C" in NPC stands for. I note you're trying to argue semantics, but disagree in RAW, RAI, and RAF (rules as fun). Honestly, its the NPC's that need the boost more anyways.

I'm more of a fan for this in skill situations than combat. They game is incredibly weighted towards players stomping monsters as it stands. My party needs a whopping 5+ to hit that orc at 5th level. Making it even easier to hit isnt really needed, and slows down fights with negotiations and option paralysis. Besides, if they miss, they can attack again in a minute. Saves I would probably be more in favor of to end a debilitating condition than just avoid damage, as being stunned takes away choice and options.

Skill checks, particularly if they open up new discovery or social options, are more interesting to adopt a fail forward/success with cost model. There's also typically far less rolls involved in a scene, so I'm more willing to engage on any individual one.