Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7001017" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!No, it shouldn't. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Here's why I think that: When 5e was getting designed and tweaked, the writers had a very specific, if overbroad (can something be both specific *and* broad?...anyway...), document guideline. In the video game industry this is called a "GDD" (Game Design Document). It lists a lot of stuff that everyone working on the game uses as a bible, basically. I'm pretty sure that the WotC 5e designers had the same thing.Anyhoo...I'd also bet that the GDD for 5e had some pretty specific, but broadly defined, key points. One: Bounded Accuracy is a thing. A very big thing. Two: DM Empowerment. Three: a "fast and loose" game that required the involved imaginations and thoughts of the DM *and* the players...together. It's the third one that I think is relevant and why I disagree with the 'need to codify'.A game that is codified? 3.5e, Pathfinder, and 4e. THOSE games are codified! If something says "+2 Dodge bonus to AC", and something else says "+2 Armor bonus to AC" and another says "+2 Magic bonus to AC"...then all of those things stack. If a special ability says it uses a "Bonus Action", that's different from a "Quick Action" which is different from a "Swift Action" which is different from an "Attack Action", etc., etc., etc. (yes, I'm looking at you, Pathfinder RPG!). This is most definitely NOT the way 5e is designed, nor should it be turned into. I think 5e already has too many 'codified' actions. IMHO, it should have "Action" and "Bonus Action". That's it. Leave any and all other potential actions in the hands of the DM and players to decide as the need arises. If 5e starts to go down the path of...er...Pathfinder..., it will ruin the game. Yes, bold words, but I'll stick by them. IMHO, if a player or DM needs something written in a book to tell him if his fighter can do a series of actions that make sense in the given situation, then I don't know what to say other than "5e is about imagination and DM adjudication; don't sweat the small stuff, roll with it and make <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> up".That said...I can understand the desire for some more guidelines and suggestions on how to handle certain situations, but adding all new, broad-reaching "macro changes" (like codifying Attacks into specific types of them) is a horrible, horrible idea for 5e. It would kill (or at least stifle) a DM's ability to "roll with it"; the rules lawyers would have a field day tearing apart the DM's descriptions, and gleefully explain just why the DM is wrong ("See, says right here...and here...and here...and here...and here...those can't be done together"). But a series of articles that give insight and suggestions on how to deal with situations that will likely come up in a campaign, using the rules we already have, would be just fine. For example, an article on Climbing. It could have situational effects, typical DC's, special equipment that can be purchased, descriptions of most common type of stone and stonework, etc, all with the eye towards the Athletics skill and using it for climbing.But, in my experience, this doesn't reduce confusion at all. All it does is change the questions from "Ok, so, I can swing my sword at him, but I can't try and feint and dodge to buy time for the wizard, and then roll out of the way?", into "Ok, so if I swing my sword it uses a Melee Attack Action, but I can't then use Bonus Action to feint? Or is that part of the Melee Attack Action, and I use a Defensive Action to dodge? Isn't feinting in this instance, well, defensive? Do I end up using all three? Or is the rolling part a Movement Action, even though it's defensive, and comes after using feint?". In short...the confusion just changes shape, but it's still there and still sucks up time, and still kills the moment during the game. And because all of these things are "codified" in the rules, the players and DM's feel obligated to look them up...every single one of them...and then try and figure out how it all fits, or doesn't fit, into this particular situation. How to fix that? Don't codify all that crap in the first place...then a DM can just say "Hmmm...ok, make an attack roll. If you succeed, you feint in stead and he turns sideways and you can just move out of the way by rolling. If you fail, you have to use your Bonus Action". Done. Quick, simple, and fair; a benefit for success, a minor penalty for failure, but it doesn't prevent the PC from helping and looking cool doing it. Much better than "Phew..well, there goes 10 minutes of play time. Ok...no. You can't, you already used your Whatever Action". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Naaa...no more codification, no more (or VERY little) added mechanics, etc. Just use the stuff we have in the game already. It will cover virtually every situation by simple fact that the DM has a brain and is encouraged to use it to apply various rules to situations those rules may not have actually been designed to do. Who cares as long as it works and everyone is having fun?^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification