Falling from Great Heights

[El Mahdi]

Free will, the enemy of inexperienced DMs.

Heh, heh. (I'm not saying anyone in this thread is an inexperienced DM,
but it was a funny quote.)



How about: Free Will...Bug or Feature?

 

[El Mahdi]

What you say may be true of 4E, and may or may not prove to be true of 5E, but it's not true of "D&D" in general. The lethality of the game has been different throughout different editions; and, indeed, various editions have had such optional rules.

"D&D" arguably encompasses a whole range of play styles and 'universal laws'. 4E attempted to codify that much more tightly, and tried to make the rules part of the fluff to describe a single coherent universe, but previous editions didn't do that. And there's no reason at present to think that 5E will.

So, in short - I don't agree that there's a defined D&D 'universe' where certain things can happen and others can't. Not unless you take a very restrictive view and view the concept of "D&D" outside it's historical context.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

(Wanted to XP this also, but I have to spread it around some more yet.)

 

[Elf Witch]

Free will, the enemy of inexperienced DMs.

Hardly he had been DMing for about 20 years but his was his first 3E game that went that high. After that he went back to playing AD&D or if he wanted a long running campaign he ran Fantasy hero.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not talking about a handful country bandits I am talking about what should be overwhelming numbers.

25 trained archers with bows drawn and 4 PCs with no cover should be a threat for the PCs. The problem is DnD does not have a mechanic where one blow can kill a high level character.

"Coup de grace" and "massive damage"

I regard 25 archers sourrounding you and you are not prepared as coup de grace attempts.

 

[Minigiant]

Oh. Whenever my players attempt to use metagame knowledge or fridge logic that their characters don't have, I force them to make an appropriate skill or ability check. Such as Geography to measure the height of the fall. Failure means I up the deadliness. They still tend to survive and win anyway because I don't cheat them.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

Again, the discussion isn't "how has D&D rules made the game behave?" Because, really, we all know how that is. The objection is being made to how the rules have made the game behave, in fact. Everyone here basically agrees with that.

The discussion one side is trying to have is "I'd like the game to be able to make low groups dangerous at all levels." Yes, it fits within the spirit of D&D: it happens at low and mid-low levels. However, characters grow out of that. We're agreed that it's the case. Now, one side is trying to say "I don't like that it happens, and would like to see an alternative."

I was replying to someone saying "if a dozen bandits with crossbows are dangerous to you, dragons mean nothing!" That's not necessarily true, and that's what I was pointing out. As always, play what you like

The issue here is whether the game should be able to make mooks dangerous at high levels, or whether it should by default make mooks dangerous at high levels. Those who have houseruled mooks to be dangerous in the past or who are advocating that they change it in 5e seem to want it to be the default. I have no problem if you, personally, or anyone else wants to run a game where mooks are a threat at all levels. I have no problem if you or anyone else want to make falls or lava or other hazards lethal.

I only have a problem when the "mooks are dangerous" people characterize the "high level characters are superhuman" people as making decisions for their PCs based purely on metagaming, or that they're abusing the rules, or that you can't have a good narrative playing that way:

She's describing a conept in D&D where players can make decisions, unrealistic decisions, because they know the rules and mechanics of the game will allow them to (even if that wasn't the specific design goal of the game - and I don't think it was). Many people do not like that style of gaming, but overall like D&D, and would like to play D&D with rules that allow them to play in the style they want.

There is NO basis whatsoever for thinking that actually ever intentionally looking at Medusa would do anything other than turn you to stone. The rules didn't find a need to explain that, particularly given that the concept of over-riding intent is so frequently made clear. The rules PRESUME an effort to avoid. And, before this "recent era" I've mentioned NO ONE I ever games with in a situation of this type even CONSIDERED it an option to do otherwise.

You are putting what amounts to an abuse of the rules over any effort to create a quality narrative. And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you complain over and over about bad experiences you have with other players. And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you are the one calling your own game experience "ludicrous". I've reach the point that I'm convinced that you are completely blind and unaware of what the game experience *I* seek and routinely enjoy is even about.

I'm not trying to say that the "mooks are dangerous" people are having wrongbadfun, or trying to deny them their playstyle in 5e, I just want to make it clear that D&D actually supports and has always supported the "high level characters are superhuman" view, often more than it has their houseruled version, so all the talk about realism being more desirable, or superhuman PCs being an abuse of the rules, or DMs having the right to just take away HP or saves or the like if they feel the PCs are doing unrealistic things, or the like isn't fair to those of us who have played superhuman PCs since the BECMI and 1e days.

Also, whether or not you think it's a good thing that it has been the default to support superhuman high levels to whatever extent since the beginning, with houserules and variants providing the realism, it should be that way in 5e if they want to support both playstyles, as I've mentioned before. If the base rules are "people die when they're stuck in burning buildings or lava, period," you have nowhere to go from there. If the base rules are "people take XdY damage from fire per turn and have to make a DC Z save against smoke inhalation/suffocation after W time units, or ten times that much damage from lava," then not only do you have a better baseline for decision making, you can also change those rules to be either absolute death or much more mild because the game is framing those rules in terms of actual game effects (saves and damage) rather than making them off-limits deathtraps and providing no scale of comparison between lava and other threats, insta-death or otherwise.

So essentially, my stance boils down to "Mooks should be nuisances at best, lava should deal fire damage, and falling should deal HP damage in the DMG, and insta-death should happen in UA, not vice-versa," that's all.

"Coup de grace" and "massive damage"

I regard 25 archers sourrounding you and you are not prepared as coup de grace attempts.

First off, "No cover" is not the same thing as "not prepared." There's plenty of room for dodging, luck, divine favor, etc. to work its magic, and the PCs definitely know it's coming so there's room for readied actions and such.

Secondly, If 25 1st-level archers, who are a long way away, across an open field, in plain sight, that you're completely expecting, are allowed to make CdG attempts against you, then I assume that a single 1st-level rogue, who's right next to you, while you're distracted by combat, hidden, that you aren't expecting, is also allowed to make a CdG attempt, then? I mean, the rogue has a much better chance to catch you "unprepared" than the archers. No? Well then.

The rogue is allowed to make a sneak attack. If it's a level 1 rogue against a level 10 PC, the rogue probably does nothing. If it's a level 15 rogue against a level 10 PC, the PC probably dies. Why is it that the rules should change just because you've entered "cutscene mode," for lack of a better term? If the PCs have been ambushed by kobold archers, goblin slingers, traps, and other projectile-launching threats before and haven't died, then why should human archers of comparable skill suddenly be much more lethal? For all this talk of realism, that certainly seems to break verisimilitude.

The original scenario was about party of 15th level PCs. They could easily have told the archers they were going to stand down and go away...and they later flown over the walls invisibly, disguised themselves and entered later, mind-controlled a guard to let them in, snuck up and killed some guards at night, or many other options. First of all, why would a DM want to punish them for taking the blatant, tactically-unsound option that would let the entire city know what they're doing and providing the DM an excuse to send a bigger and better force against them instead of being smart about it? Second of all, the problem is that the PCs reacted with violence, not that they could do it successfully! The party was claimed to be nonevil, yet their first reaction was to talk back to the guards, kill everything, and take over the city instead of, oh I don't know, asking why they were being denied entrance and trying to talk it out?

Just because your 15th-level PCs can take over a nation and they know it doesn't mean they actually should, and it seems like that's the root cause people object to--the inability of town guards to stop PCs from being homicidal maniacs--not necessarily the realism of the guards.

 

[Incenjucar]

"Cutscene mode" is actually a good way to look at it. A lot of these discussions remind me of the difference between cutscenes and gameplay in video games. In the gameplay, you can do X, Y, and Z, but in the cutscenes you can suddenly to A, B, and C, but Z is totally different and X and Y just don't happen. Like the infamous Aerith vs. Phoenix Down issue.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not trying to say that the "mooks are dangerous" people are having wrongbadfun,

I think you have taken my quote quite a bit out of context there.

There is a great deal of design space in between "mooks are dangerous" and "you can have staring contests with Medusa" or "you can drink a carboy of poison and shrug it off".

If the base rules are "people die when they're stuck in burning buildings or lava, period," you have nowhere to go from there.

First, just to be picky, "in lava" and "in a burning building" are vastly different in ways that make them quite difficult to compare.

But beyond that, I disagree that you have nowhere to go from "if you fall into lava, you die." D&D is all about the exceptions.

If you get a magic charm that makes you immune to petrification, well then NOW you can go see how long it takes for Medusa to blink.
Situations can certainly arise for all kinds of survival in circumstances that are instantly deadly by default.

 

[Elf Witch]

The issue here is whether the game should be able to make mooks dangerous at high levels, or whether it should by default make mooks dangerous at high levels. Those who have houseruled mooks to be dangerous in the past or who are advocating that they change it in 5e seem to want it to be the default. I have no problem if you, personally, or anyone else wants to run a game where mooks are a threat at all levels. I have no problem if you or anyone else want to make falls or lava or other hazards lethal.

I only have a problem when the "mooks are dangerous" people characterize the "high level characters are superhuman" people as making decisions for their PCs based purely on metagaming, or that they're abusing the rules, or that you can't have a good narrative playing that way:





I'm not trying to say that the "mooks are dangerous" people are having wrongbadfun, or trying to deny them their playstyle in 5e, I just want to make it clear that D&D actually supports and has always supported the "high level characters are superhuman" view, often more than it has their houseruled version, so all the talk about realism being more desirable, or superhuman PCs being an abuse of the rules, or DMs having the right to just take away HP or saves or the like if they feel the PCs are doing unrealistic things, or the like isn't fair to those of us who have played superhuman PCs since the BECMI and 1e days.

Also, whether or not you think it's a good thing that it has been the default to support superhuman high levels to whatever extent since the beginning, with houserules and variants providing the realism, it should be that way in 5e if they want to support both playstyles, as I've mentioned before. If the base rules are "people die when they're stuck in burning buildings or lava, period," you have nowhere to go from there. If the base rules are "people take XdY damage from fire per turn and have to make a DC Z save against smoke inhalation/suffocation after W time units, or ten times that much damage from lava," then not only do you have a better baseline for decision making, you can also change those rules to be either absolute death or much more mild because the game is framing those rules in terms of actual game effects (saves and damage) rather than making them off-limits deathtraps and providing no scale of comparison between lava and other threats, insta-death or otherwise.

So essentially, my stance boils down to "Mooks should be nuisances at best, lava should deal fire damage, and falling should deal HP damage in the DMG, and insta-death should happen in UA, not vice-versa," that's all.



First off, "No cover" is not the same thing as "not prepared." There's plenty of room for dodging, luck, divine favor, etc. to work its magic, and the PCs definitely know it's coming so there's room for readied actions and such.

Secondly, If 25 1st-level archers, who are a long way away, across an open field, in plain sight, that you're completely expecting, are allowed to make CdG attempts against you, then I assume that a single 1st-level rogue, who's right next to you, while you're distracted by combat, hidden, that you aren't expecting, is also allowed to make a CdG attempt, then? I mean, the rogue has a much better chance to catch you "unprepared" than the archers. No? Well then.

The rogue is allowed to make a sneak attack. If it's a level 1 rogue against a level 10 PC, the rogue probably does nothing. If it's a level 15 rogue against a level 10 PC, the PC probably dies. Why is it that the rules should change just because you've entered "cutscene mode," for lack of a better term? If the PCs have been ambushed by kobold archers, goblin slingers, traps, and other projectile-launching threats before and haven't died, then why should human archers of comparable skill suddenly be much more lethal? For all this talk of realism, that certainly seems to break verisimilitude.

The original scenario was about party of 15th level PCs. They could easily have told the archers they were going to stand down and go away...and they later flown over the walls invisibly, disguised themselves and entered later, mind-controlled a guard to let them in, snuck up and killed some guards at night, or many other options. First of all, why would a DM want to punish them for taking the blatant, tactically-unsound option that would let the entire city know what they're doing and providing the DM an excuse to send a bigger and better force against them instead of being smart about it? Second of all, the problem is that the PCs reacted with violence, not that they could do it successfully! The party was claimed to be nonevil, yet their first reaction was to talk back to the guards, kill everything, and take over the city instead of, oh I don't know, asking why they were being denied entrance and trying to talk it out?

Just because your 15th-level PCs can take over a nation and they know it doesn't mean they actually should, and it seems like that's the root cause people object to--the inability of town guards to stop PCs from being homicidal maniacs--not necessarily the realism of the guards.

As someone who would like to see mooks made more deadly when in they are in mass I have never said that way of play should be the default but that there should be rules that allow me to play that style of game without a ton of house rules. They should be optional rules I am even willing to wait for a separate splat book on it.

I was in the game that went to hades in a hand basket. As we approached the city the gates suddenly closed and archers with their bows ready to fire targeted us. Out through a side door the captain of the guard and some of his men came to confront us.

At that point the DM had to excuse himself to take care of his child who had woken from a nightmare.

So a out of character discussion started at the table over why this was happening. We knew we were not evil we had been told by our sponsor that we had to get in to the city and get an artifact to stop a demon from entering the world.

What we didn't know at the time was that our sponsor wanted the artifact so he could summon the demon. He had an item that hid his alignment and we had failed our sense motive checks so we thought him a good guy.

The city was actually protecting this artifact and had been warned that we were coming.

So our metagame conversation went something like this. Look we can take these guys they can't be near our level not if the DM is doing it the way you are supposed to.

I argued that our PCs wouldn't know that and that we should wait and talk to the guards. I pointed out that the city was known for its archers so that should give us pause.

Yeah but they won't be near our level because if they were 25 would be to big a CR threat. Came the reply from the rules lawyer of our group.

The DM came back and the action started the captain told us that we would not be allowed in the city because of our association with Mr Bad and that they would die to protect the artifact.

I told the guard that he didn't understand what was at stake that the world was in danger. He replied well you can talk to the governor but you will have to surrender your weapons and your wizard will have to wait here.

Surrender weapons, split the party no way so instead of going off and talking about another way to get in the rogue of the party attacked the captain and rolled a crit and down he went. That triggered the archers to fire at us. And we ended up in a blood bath.

I talked to the DM later and he was trying to set it up so we would start questioning what we had been told by Mr Bad. He never thought since we were a good party that we would kill the guards this way. He also thought we would have surrendered or left because of the archers.

The way he described the area was it was a killing field with no cover for us. The archers were on the wall and we were in range.

Everything some of them did that night was based on the metagame idea that as high level characters we couldn't be challenged by low level guards and because some of us knew the CR threat range really well they were able to guess that they had to be low level otherwise it would have been a fair challenge.

Anyway I sometimes like to play in a game where PCs are not gods at high levels just well trained and very competent.

I don't want them to guzzle poison just because they can or leap of a cliff just because they can or walk across acid pools or lava just because they can.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The issue here is whether the game should be able to make mooks dangerous at high levels, or whether it should by default make mooks dangerous at high levels.

I don't care which way it goes, as long as both are presented as options. Others in this thread that want it as well seem to share that sentiment. As always, play what you like