D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[Lyxen]

I do not think it is as easy as you claim, Improvising a tactical benefit which balances is a tricky deal especially when elements the character gives up are level dependent and sometimes extraordinarily potent like multi-attacking. For instance going from 3/4 coverage to 1/2 might actually cover the chances to hit factor of a 2x multi (level 5 or 6 for those who have it) but not account for the likely increased damage...

And this is exactly my point, you are still gaming the system, making computations and looking at purely technical benefits based on optimising the damage.

Players who look for fiction/story will care much less about this (and much more about the cool story that they are creating), but still don't want to be completely gimped by their choices, so giving them advantage or another benefit of the kind will be enough to make their story choices relevant (and possibly better) compared to purely technical choices, and therefore incite more technical players to do the same in the future.

This is for 5e anyway, where it's rulings over rules, not 4e where rules were absolutely everything. I don't want to make a catalog of all possible cases and check for the overall balance of new rules, I just want local rulings that look nice and incite players to look for cool fiction/story/description for very specific cases that will probably not ever happen the game over the course of the campaign anyway.

Again, if your preferred style of play is about optimising the technical benefit of the system, it's absolutely fine, but then it's also normal that the fiction is not an objective and cannot be supported by using the system in a purely technical manner.

 

[Garthanos]

This is for 5e anyway, where it's rulings over rules, not 4e where rules were absolutely everything. I don't want to make a catalog of all possible cases and check for the overall balance of new rules, I just want local rulings that look nice and incite players to look for cool fiction/story/description for very specific cases that will probably not ever happen the game over the course of the campaign anyway.

Using page 42 in the same scenario in 4e would have potentially gained a balanced result still with details off the cuff but with guidance that accounted for exactly the things your quick thought didnt.

To me its having my cake and eating it too.

 

[Garthanos]

This is for 5e anyway, where it's rulings over rules,

An advertising gimmick and excuse

And this is exactly my point, you are still gaming the system

Your language implies cheating,

"Gaming the system (also rigging, abusing, cheating, milking, playing, working, or breaking the system, or gaming or bending the rules) can be defined as using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system to, instead, manipulate the system for a desired outcome."

You want a tactic to be attractive you give it as much or nearly as much zoom as standard methodologies aka the other tactic on the table.

 

[Lyxen]

Using page 42 in the same scenario in 4e would have potentially gained a balanced result still with details off the cuff but with guidance that accounted for exactly the things your quick thought didnt.

Huh, no, because it's cumbersome, and slow, for one, to go and consult tables and remember where they are. Second, it does not give more guidance, it gives exactly the same level of guidance, which is totally up to the DM's adjudication as to whether something is easy, moderate of hard, it's just that rather that having something easy that works in all circumstances like Adv/Dis, it has to spread it by level where this does not matter in the slightest in the end because everything important scales with level.

So, overall, it's way more complex and slow to resolve for exactly ZERO additional benefit, in 5e I can give Adv/Dis in a flash and resolve the situation with exactly as most guidance and no more technical impact on the overall game.

You might be a 4e guru, but we played it for at least 5 years and ended up being thoroughly disappointed with the rigidity of the system and in particular its total inability to model D&D Fantasy worlds like all the previous editions had allowed us to dream of. It's a simple fact for our tables that story/fiction totally stopped as soon as we rolled initiative because we had to settle on a grid and resolve push/pulls/move like playing chess until combat was over.

And in particular, without drifting into edition wars and coming back to the subject of this thread, everything in combat was totally artificial starting with the grid and the powers that were indeed precise as long as you admitted that you did not move at the same speed if you were moving SE as if you were moving N, that FireBALLS were actually cubical and that fiction and stories were totally subordinate to the gaming system.

I totally admit that it was by far the most perfect of the gaming systems ever produced for D&D (as long as you limited your D&D play to what 4e could model), but it totally forced you to become a gamist at the expense of the story and the fiction and the total loss (in our cases) of the Suspension of Disbelief due to the effects above amongst many others.

You might call it that having your cake and eating it too, I have no problem with that if it's what you are looking for, but it's not what our tables are looking for at all especially when we want fiction to be (as) seamless (as possible) between social/exploration and combat, like it is in all stories of the genre.

 

[Lyxen]

An advertising gimmick and excuse

Your language implies cheating,

And this is a very derogatory term, I will not continue this conversation for long if you slide this way.

"Gaming the system (also rigging, abusing, cheating, milking, playing, working, or breaking the system, or gaming or bending the rules) can be defined as using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system to, instead, manipulate the system for a desired outcome."

You want a tactic to be attractive you give it as much or nearly as much zoom as standard methodologies aka the other tactic on the table.

As a DM, I am not playing against the players, I have no stake in the game (and in particular the results of any fight) apart from the fun and pleasure of my players. And I am not bound by ANY specific rules or tactics, for example this is official 5e text: "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

So by any definition, I cannot bend or break any rules as I can choose at any time which rules are in application, and which rulings apply.

And I am not bound to warn in advance which rule or ruling will apply. On the contrary, again, official 5e text: "Consider granting advantage when … Circumstances not related to a creature’s inherent capabilities provide it with an edge. Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character’s chance of success. A player shows exceptional creativity or cunning in attempting or describing a task."

So when doing the above, I am certainly not cheating, I am not even using local rulings, I am using 100% RAW 5e rules.

You are of course absolutely welcome to play with a rigid game system, but I prefer to play by the words of the 5e designers: "An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D."

To each his own, you want pre-defined restrictive rules, you are very welcome to use whatever you want, but I don't want them because I want an open-ended game and you have ZERO right or justification to call this cheating.

 

[Garthanos]

Huh, no, because it's cumbersome, and slow, for one, to go and consult tables and remember where they are.

its on a cheat sheet I keep with all the time when gaming and very small

Second, it does not give more guidance, it gives exactly the same level of guidance, which is totally up to the DM's adjudication as to whether something is easy, moderate of hard, it's just that rather that having something easy that works in all circumstances like Adv/Dis, it has to spread it by level where this does not matter in the slightest in the end because everything important scales with level.

Yeah no advantage for improvised things explitly has the problem what you suggested does.

So, overall, it's way more complex and slow to resolve for exactly ZERO additional benefit, in 5e I can give Adv/Dis in a flash and resolve the situation with exactly as most guidance and no more technical impact on the overall game.

and not accounting for something as huge as my character can normally make 3 or 4 attacks and are already more likely than advantage grants.

And this is a very derogatory term, I will not continue this conversation for long if you slide this way.

Calls someone a cheat gets called on it then claims they were being derogatory.

As a DM, I am not playing against the players, I have no stake in the game (and in particular the results of any fight) apart from the fun and pleasure of my players. And I am not bound by ANY specific rules or tactics, for example this is official 5e text: "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

So by any definition, I cannot bend or break any rules as I can choose at any time which rules are in application, and which rulings apply.

you called my analysis "gaming the system" ...

And I am not bound to warn in advance which rule or ruling will apply. On the contrary, again, official 5e text: "Consider granting advantage when … Circumstances not related to a creature’s inherent capabilities provide it with an edge. Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character’s chance of success. A player shows exceptional creativity or cunning in attempting or describing a task."

So when doing the above, I am certainly not cheating, I am not using local rulings, I am using 100% RAW 5e rules.

LOL you used the term gaming the system and said what I was doing was that.... I pointed out you were calling me a cheat.

 

[Lyxen]

"Gaming the system (also rigging, abusing, cheating, milking, playing, working, or breaking the system, or gaming or bending the rules) can be defined as using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system to, instead, manipulate the system for a desired outcome."

Oh yes, you know what, I'm actually totally proud to manipulate the system (without that being called cheating as it is not only permissible, but ENCOURAGED by the rules) to have the desired outcome, which is the fun and happiness of my players.

I'd rather have this every single time than having one instance of them being frustrated by a DM protecting a system that limits the freedom of the game, like we had for all these years in which we played 4e.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh yes, you know what, I'm actually totally proud to manipulate the system (without that being called cheating as it is not only permissible, but ENCOURAGED by the rules) to have the desired outcome, which is the fun and happiness of my players.

I'd rather have this every single time than having one instance of them being frustrated by a DM protecting a system that limits the freedom of the game, like we had for all these years in which we played 4e.

You accused me of "gaming the system" when I pointed out your on the fly tactic was dramatically still inferior to a bald faced I hit it with my sword or bow several times

 

[Lyxen]

its on a cheat sheet I keep with all the time when gaming and very small

Good for you, but I don't even need that, so still lighter and quicker for exactly the same outcome.

and not accounting for something as huge as my character can normally make 3 or 4 attacks and are already more likely than advantage grants.

If technical damage is all that you are looking for, good for you, carry on at your tables. For those of us who are looking for more than a purely technical game, there are solutions that work really well, that's all, but for that you need a less technical view of the system and its application (and a less technical system helps immensely).

Calls someone a cheat gets called on it then claims they were being derogatory.
you called my analysis "gaming the system" ...
LOL you used the term gaming the system and said what I was doing was that.... I pointed out you were calling me a cheat.

Believe it or not, my intent was certainly not to accuse of anything like cheating (and I hope it was obvious from the rest of the descriptions), it was just pointing out the difference between gaming with mostly the system in mind or gaming with the fantasy world in mind. But if you need to go and fetch definitions like this to imply my calling you a cheat, I think we'd better stop here.

 

[Garthanos]

Believe it or not, my intent was certainly not to accuse of anything like cheating (and I hope it was obvious from the rest of the descriptions), it was just pointing out the difference between gaming with mostly the system in mind or gaming with the fantasy world in mind. But if you need to go and fetch definitions like this to imply my calling you a cheat, I think we'd better stop here.

You were using very negative language that implied people who like their tactical choices to be actually viable instead of "fake viable" are cheats.... and not really roleplaying. I think characters would typically on purpose NOT choose dramatically inferior tactics in that fantasy world just like they don't in the real world.