Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6547669" data-attributes="member: 6775031">I'm not a fan of this ruling. The "How to Play" supports that the DM can do this, but it is in conflict with the combat rules, which I take to serve as strong guidelines on how the DM should narrate the results of certain common actions (in this case, by calling for a specific sequence of checks against established DCs).As a player, I look the rules as my baseline understanding of how the world works. Unless something changes to break my expectations, those are the assumptions I'm going to work by. I think I know that, whether or not I hit, I don't need to worry about retribution until the orc's turn (as long as I don't move away and provoke immediately). I think I know that I need to hit its AC, which I can guess with a certain probability, and that it has X amount of HP and my weapon does Y damage on a success (or 0 damage on a failure). I know that I have Z current HP, and it has A chance of hitting me for B damage on a success (or 0 damage on a failure). There could be an unknown factor here, if the orc is secretly an illusioned Balor or whatever, but that's something else I can imagine within some degree of confidence.My knowledge of the rule structure, and how I expect the DM will call for checks in order to resolve the action I wish to perform, is extremely important to which actions I will want to perform. In the three-steps of How to Play, my understanding of 1 and my strong expectations of 3 are fundamental to my choice at 2.If the DM is not going to follow the guidelines set forth in all of the rules, then I can deal with it as long as it's established ahead of time. It's a decent house rule - if you miss by 1 or 2, then you deal weapon damage (minus Strength mod) and they get a counter-attack. I have reasons why it would make more sense to deal Strength mod damage, and ignore the weapon die, but whatever. Even if it's established that you will have a choice, in that situation, then that's something I can take into consideration. (My choice would probably be to play an archer.)If it's just an on-the-spot ruling, without some sort of mitigating circumstance where I might be able to see it coming - without some real reason why this situation is different enough from the normal expectations of combat that I would expect it to resolve differently - then I would be completely blindsided. I couldn't make that choice, in the moment. I would need at least ten minutes to ponder the ramifications of my uncertainty in the rules. I would have to question everything I thought I knew about how the world works. If I made it to the end of the session, I probably wouldn't return for the next one. It is entirely unreasonable to ask anyone to play a game where they have no confidence in what the rules are.</blockquote>

Verification