D&D 5E Battlemaster and Superiority Dice are causing martials to suffer.

[Garthanos]

As I wrote, the damage would occur on the turn of the foe (being threatened in melee), which is off-turn for the PC. But on-turn for the foe.

I didnt read well, because you clearly indicated anytime when they move away so its resolved all on the turn of the reactor.

A monk weaving through the battle triggers opportunity attacks and ripostes against each. Is riposte on your concept list?

 

[Garthanos]

Regardless, long chained use of oblique references makes me utterly uncertain what you are talking about. Please be more clear?

I think I now get it... Not the same but for some reason it reminds me a little of the Highlander card game. On your turn you indicate who you are attacking and whatever other details (I think they had some which were played face down but it has been many years since I played) AND the enemy responds to those threats on their turn then plays their attacks and so on.

 

[Garthanos]

Attacking downed characters is the opposite of 'effectively' playing the opposition. It's just wanting the PC dead for whatever reason and will teach the players to just not do anything that might result in them going down. Like following adventure hooks.

It seems to be very Gygaxian adversarialism to me.

 

[NotAYakk]

I didnt read well, because you clearly indicated anytime when they move away so its resolved all on the turn of the reactor.

A monk weaving through the battle triggers opportunity attacks and ripostes against each. Is riposte on your concept list?

A riposte might be something that can occur when you use your action to defend. Like, if you took the defend action, and you do a critical pass of your defence roll, you do damage to them (or cause an attack, or impose disadvantage on their defence roll, or...)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Shrug, people with classes are rare in my world, and so mid fight healing would be too( I assume most priests and similar are ritualists even who actually have to spend time on performing a healing.).

This is one of those cases where you appear to be playing a heavily houseruled version of D&D; there are as far as I remember (and google seems to confirm) no healing rituals in 5e. Yes, I agree there should be - and it makes for a better fantasy world. But when you talk about healing rituals you are talking about your personal house rules. By the rules as written healing rituals don't really happen and Healing Word is a first level spell. It's not a spell most potential healers take because for normal uses it's a niche battlefield healing spell that's less efficient than Cure Wounds.

Game world specifics aside...
I do not see any reason to assume that most/many/all monsters are going to PC assassin in the midst of other dangerous active adversaries... except somebody with 1e expectations of DM vs PC who wants to be as they put it "mean" with additional citing of horror stories as examples, (ie this conversation has context)

I don't see any reason to assume most will. But I equally don't see any reason to assume that none will.

But I do see you being directly personally insulting to anyone in the opposing camp to you, ascribing negative motivations (explicitly being mean) to anyone who does not explicitly house rule the game the way you have. I don't understand the desire to play NPCs as utterly ignorant of the way their game world works - even the ones that are (a) supposed to be specialists in this sort of thing or (b) have literally seen it happen right in front of them.

Right that is completely the kind of down we are talking about /smdh

But if there is a reasonable belief that the enemy has Healing Word that's all they will be. /smdh

 

[Garthanos]

But I do see you being directly personally insulting to anyone in the opposing camp to you, ascribing negative motivations (explicitly being mean) to anyone who does not explicitly house rule the game the way you have.

The person in context used that word themselves at some level I just agreed, you are right though perhaps not everyone... and maybe some monsters in world might know (they never brought the idea of that up), but then if "only some or a few know" then you would not be playing monsters on "hard mode" also a quote.

Yes the ritual healing of my world (like remove affliction in 4e) is a carryover from before 5e (and yes in my opinión makes for better fantasy world)

 

[NotAYakk]

This is one of those cases where you appear to be playing a heavily houseruled version of D&D; there are as far as I remember (and google seems to confirm) no healing rituals in 5e. Yes, I agree there should be - and it makes for a better fantasy world. But when you talk about healing rituals you are talking about your personal house rules. By the rules as written healing rituals don't really happen and Healing Word is a first level spell. It's not a spell most potential healers take because for normal uses it's a niche battlefield healing spell that's less efficient than Cure Wounds.

Nothing in the core rules of D&D states that NPCs use magic like PCs do. There are some examples of this happening in the core rules, but no house rules require a DM to say "no, that isn't how NPCs use magic".

Meanwhile, much of 5e D&D presumes NPCs don't use magic (and gain abilities) like PCs do. There are monsters with spells that work differently, sidekicks don't work exactly like PCs, etc.

The "the rules for PCs simulate the world" presumption is a relic of 3e and 90s style RPG design. 4e rejected it, and 5e did not reinstate it (unlike 4e, 5e rules permit you to use PC rules as world simulation; 4e explicitly rejected it.)

Not one iota of "heavily houseruled" is required for the world to have magical healers that don't work like PC clerics at all.

 

[Garthanos]

The "the rules for PCs simulate the world" presumption is a relic of 3e and 90s style RPG design.

This...

 

[Baron Opal II]

Nothing in the core rules of D&D states that NPCs use magic like PCs do. There are some examples of this happening in the core rules, but no house rules require a DM to say "no, that isn't how NPCs use magic".

Meanwhile, much of 5e D&D presumes NPCs don't use magic (and gain abilities) like PCs do. There are monsters with spells that work differently, sidekicks don't work exactly like PCs, etc.

The "the rules for PCs simulate the world" presumption is a relic of 3e and 90s style RPG design. 4e rejected it, and 5e did not reinstate it (unlike 4e, 5e rules permit you to use PC rules as world simulation; 4e explicitly rejected it.)

Not one iota of "heavily houseruled" is required for the world to have magical healers that don't work like PC clerics at all.

Okay, but how do you manage expectations, then? Are those just game rules that simplify things? So, yes, the monsters learn magic like PCs and have the same knowledge of healing word, et al., and we hand wave the mechanics for DM ease and speed of play? Or are the rules for magic specifically different, so that the monsters aren't doing anything recognizable but are correspondingly ignorant of PC capabilities?

Is this a Session Zero issue? A diagetic disconnect that some people find jarring and others wonder what the fuss is about?

 

[Garthanos]

Okay, but how do you manage expectations, then?

For me it is session zero material there is a rather witchy religious group on my game world called Bladedancers a player who wants to play a swordmage (which for 5e can use a 3pp similar in form to the Warlock) could be a member a gifted one (they discover their own arts which goes beyond the normal), not all members of the group work magic with their sword-dancing but generally the priestess can accomplish magics which require the group participation. One difference a gifted one can do the magic themselves and have other distinctions. The NPCs have knowledge special gifteds exist and in the coven the knowledge certainly includes generally that they can work magic without the coven (or become a coven leader) but the details about can they do X or Y not very often.

This is just one example.
But the idea of "finding ones own path" because magics manifestation many times is affected by your identity is a trope in many cases.