D&D 5E Helping melee combat to be more competitive to ranged.

[Ilbranteloth]

I recognise that no one actually assumes that it is impossible for a 5e army to advance in ranks at a steady run.

But I don't really understand where some D&Ders/posters draw these boundaries. Once it's acknowledged that there are cases - and not especially bizarre cases - that the mechanics don't handle well, I'm not sure why there is such frequent hostility to people posting about issues the mechanics have caused in their games.

For me it's really just a question of pet peeves. In this case it comes down to two things:

First, I like things to make sense. Once I notice something, it's hard to un-notice it, and my mind naturally starts working on how to "fix" it. So it's partially from a mechanical sense, that there ought to be a way for it to work better, or more properly. Obviously all of these mechanics are compromises that try to take into account their wonkiness and various shortcomings.

Second, I'm the sort that likes the rules to play a supporting role and not force the fiction to follow or be redefined by the rules. Even worse is when the rules become, well, the rule in the world that produces a different fiction. This is often attributed to the players (metagaming), but to me it's a failure of the rules.

In the current example, we are considering a charge:
The descriptions given before are correct, if the attack comes in the next round, it really is still continuous because the round-by-round construct is simply to help maintain order in the proceedings. Fair enough. Does it make sense?

Well, if a round is 6 seconds, and the charge is actually 10 seconds long, then yes, it should occur in the second round. In which case my mechanics should be different. That is, a charge requires a two-round commitment (as it does RAW now). The only thing that's lacking is the benefit of a charge.

Charge: After a dash (including one in the previous round), you can use an Action to make an charge attack. The other potential risks and benefits (opponent set against the charge, knockdown, tackle, extra damage with a piercing weapon, etc. would still apply.

So this generally turns it into a two-round action, but still grants you the benefits of a charge. It could also serve as a model for other two-round actions. But, this also means that a rogue could use Cunning Action to charge, while a fighter without a feat would take two rounds. This bothers me because I think a trained warrior would be better at it than a rogue, assuming either is. My preference would be that it's the same across the board, and a feat to allow them to be better if they'd like to be.

So the two-round action is OK with me, it's basically saying a charge requires more time to execute than a standard attack (no problem there), but not the alteration in the fiction that now makes the rogues of the world better at a charge than a fighter. One could argue that a defining feature of a rogue is mobility, and fits fairly well with a swashbuckler, and I might agree, but not so much for a thief of assassin.

The prior rule I came up with gives you the attack as a bonus action at the end of the charge. So it does take more time to execute than a standard attack already. It also eliminates the problem with the rogue suddenly being better than a fighter at a charge because of an oddity in the rules. Since we're considering multi-round actions, the rogue could still use their Cunning Action first in the next round, instead of their Action, still giving them an extra edge, just not as great as normal.

With the prior rule you can consider the charge one of two ways: One, it gives you an extra action (or bonus action) because it allows you to take an action and a bonus action. On the other hand, it's recognizing that a charge takes more time than other actions in combat, because it consumes your move, your action, and your bonus action.

 

[Imaro]

Not sure why you mentined me, Imaro?

Didn't you post the example of the gnolls as data to support your claim that higher CR humanoids are needed? If not why did you even post it? If so do you believe it supports your conclusion, and if so... why?

I'm not the OP. He doesn't even discuss the mob rules in is OP.

Got that... my bad... though in all honesty it doesn't change anything about what I said insofar as your example is concerned.

I'm not saying the mob rules doesn't work (heck, I didn't even get to try them out) - I'm saying the game needs higher-levelled variants for common (and uncommon) humanoids.

Emphasis mine... based on what exactly? Again your example is flawed in numerous places so what exactly are you basing this assertion on?

Other than that, I really have nothing to add. If you'd rather convince yourself I ran "everything from the mob rules to the usage of the spell" incorrectly rather than have to acknowledge there are wobbly aspects of the edition, I will certainly not waste my time.

Wait... did you or didn't you run the mob rules incorrectly? Did you or did you not allow incorrect usage of the spell?

Nothing I've claimed about your example is false is it? So instead of admitting your "experiment" was flawed and doesn't (at least as far as you've presented it in this thread) support a need for higher CR humanoids, you try to disingenuously paint me as "not acknowledging the wobbly aspects of the edition" ... you know as opposed to wanting an actual example of a correctly run scenario to support your assertion.

With the type of "logic" you're choosing to support your argument I'm not surprised you don't have anything more to add.

On another note if anyone wants to discuss how low CR humanoids in mobs actually play out against tier 3 characters I'd be more than happy to engage in an honest conversation about it to see how well 5e handles that particular scenario.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I recognise that no one actually assumes that it is impossible for a 5e army to advance in ranks at a steady run.

But I don't really understand where some D&Ders/posters draw these boundaries. Once it's acknowledged that there are cases - and not especially bizarre cases - that the mechanics don't handle well, I'm not sure why there is such frequent hostility to people posting about issues the mechanics have caused in their games.

Oh, but they do. And if that became a benefit for players in the game it would be documented, promoted, and defended as something that the DM should be allowing because it's RAW.

One of the things that I (don't) get, is that certain people play the game specifically by the rules. That is, not only do they use the rules to help adjudicate the action within the world, but they define the action within the world by those rules, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. The way I see it, they define the game as a game, which it is, but I think it's missing the point. The game is the activity in the fiction, and the rules are their to support that fiction. Whereas treating the rules as the game means that the rules define the fiction, and altering the rules alters the fiction. Sometimes you want that. For example, without rules for magic, there is no magic in the world.

Rules Lawyers thrive on finding those loopholes. So I get it, but I don't get it.

For example, this thread (in which I have not engaged, just came across it):

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ppler-s-Manual-(2-0)-Grappling-in-5th-Edition

Here's the sort of thing that bugs me because of the way it alters the fiction of the world and how the fictional world works:

Under the Strengths and Weaknesses section:

[*]Weak against large numbers of opponents. As in real life (for those martial artists in the audience), grappling is not particularly effective against multiple attackers. You can only meaningfully engage with as many attackers as you have hands, which is often just going to be two.

A few paragraphs later, when getting into 5e grappling specifically:

[*]Unlike in previous D&D editions, there is no penalty for grappling multiple targets. You can grapple as many targets as you have hands (typically two).

Further down, he reinforces this position under Intermediate Grappling Moves:

[*]Grapple someone else! As long as you have at least one free hand, you can initiate another grapple. So go find another enemy and repeat the whole process from step 1.

• Once the second enemy is grappled, you won't be able to do actions that require a free hand.
• Thankfully, you WILL be able to knock either of them prone; shoving does not require a free hand.

From my perspective, this is one of the things that started the progression toward 4e. OD&D was very simple with the rules. The assumption in part (confirmed in later interviews) is that DMs are intelligent and could resolve things without more complex rules. However, it turned out to be the biggest "weakness" in that the most common type of letter they would receive at the time were for rules clarifications. This led, in part, to AD&D which attempted to reconcile and clarify things, among other goals. Since it was early in RPG design, you could argue that it was only partially successful.

The progression becomes more evident when you compare the spell descriptions in OD&D, AD&D, and 2e, as they have become longer, with lists of restrictions, and sometimes changes, presumably to clarify, but it's pretty evident that most of the time it was to prevent certain abuses. This continues into 3rd edition, and in 4th edition was rendered largely moot since they were all converted to very narrow abilities with very stringent mechanics around them at this point.

One of the main problems with this approach, though, is that no matter how you try to reword the ability to eliminate the loopholes and potential for abuse, people will always find new ones to exploit (like our legal and political systems).

5e went the other direction, re-empowering the DM to adjudicate the situation, with a stripped down, yet more coherent set of rules to support them than AD&D had. In general, it works well, but they still have to fend off the folks like this that want to game the system to their advantage. In fact, other than the changes in the game itself (class abilities, etc.) it's really close to being AD&D 3e the more I look at it.

Over the years I've had to address these sorts of players from time-to-time, and it can be a real challenge at points. So my approach now is to look at what we are trying to model with the rules, and if we need to tweak it, fine, or if simple adjudication works (sorry, you can't grapple two creatures), that's fine too.

But the problem is that the way rules usually work, is the rules are, well, the rules. And it's difficult to change that behavior and say that in D&D (or RPGs) that it's a little different. The rules are the rules, but in some ways they are more like guidelines, and the DM has to make a judgement call to interpret them. For folks like me, this works exactly as I'd expect. But there are sizable groups of players where this is a real challenge. That any DM interpretation is bad, just like illusionism is bad, and fudging is bad, and anything else that alters the relationship between me (the player) and the RAW, because that is taking away my player agency.

None of these approaches is wrong, mind you. This is totally personal preference on my part, and my interpretation of what D&D is is both colored by my preferences, and my preferences are colored by my interpretation of the game going back to what I learned in the beginning.

 

[pemerton]

I really have to ask: is there any reason why I'm summoned to all of these posts?

(You don't seem to have a question for me, I mean)

Sorry - I tend to @-mention people when I refer to them, because I don't want to look like I'm gossiping about you behind your back!

 

[pemerton]

One of the things that I (don't) get, is that certain people play the game specifically by the rules. That is, not only do they use the rules to help adjudicate the action within the world, but they define the action within the world by those rules

I play the game by the rules. But I don't define the action within the world by the rules. I define the action within the world by the intentions of action declarations: if the rules tell us that the declarant succeeded, then they get what they were aiming for with their action; otherwise not.

If you want I've got a lot of actual play posts I can point you to.

this is one of the things that started the progression toward 4e. OD&D was very simple with the rules.

<snip>

The progression becomes more evident when you compare the spell descriptions in OD&D, AD&D, and 2e, as they have become longer, with lists of restrictions, and sometimes changes, presumably to clarify, but it's pretty evident that most of the time it was to prevent certain abuses. This continues into 3rd edition, and in 4th edition was rendered largely moot since they were all converted to very narrow abilities with very stringent mechanics around them at this point.

Your characterisation of 4e is mistaken.

Just to give one example: the 4e fireball spell description is practically identical to that in Moldvay Basic. Both describe the range, the AoE, and mention the damage vs creatures. Both leave it as an issue of table adjudication to determine the effect the fireball has on objects/structures other than creatures.

I agree that there is a trend of increased spell description length from classic D&D through to 3E - following Ron Edwards I call it "karaoke", by which I mean that stuff that was originally someone's ruling at their table becomes codified for everyone else to follow. But I don't think it's tenable to notice that (i) 4e breaks from this trend, and goes back to very short, crisp descriptions, yet (ii) assert that 4e is an instance of the same trend. 4e breaks from the trend, disavows karaoke, and via p 42, its rules for dealing damage to objects and its skill challenge rules returns to the idea of adjudication at the table - though using a more "indie"-style framework for doing so than existed in the classic game.

 

[ktkenshinx]

Under the Strengths and Weaknesses section:



A few paragraphs later, when getting into 5e grappling specifically:



Further down, he reinforces this position under Intermediate Grappling Moves:

There is no contradiction here. The weakness is that you can't fight large (>2) groups of enemies using grappling. This isn't a limitation of, say, a greatsword or a two-weapon fighter, who can engage 3+ opponents simultaneously. The strength is that you can at least fight 2 enemies and you can do so very well, which wasn't possible under the rules of earlier editions. This makes plenty of sense in fantasy worlds and heroic games like D&D. If average human strength is 10 in the real world and most people are level 1, it is totally logical that a level 10 half-orc with 18+ strength would be more than capable of grappling two people using his hands to grab and then his body/legs/head to do the rest.

Even ignoring the game rules, this actually happens in real life, not in games. You see strong guys grab the lapel/collar of one opponent with his left hand, one opponent with his right hand, and then drag them around or throw them to the ground. I've seen this happen in and outside of gyms, particularly when the initiating grappler is trained/larger and the people being grappled are untrained/smaller. This reinforces that the rules are just replicating an out-of-game reality.

Over the years I've had to address these sorts of players from time-to-time, and it can be a real challenge at points. So my approach now is to look at what we are trying to model with the rules, and if we need to tweak it, fine, or if simple adjudication works (sorry, you can't grapple two creatures), that's fine too.

Players would be justifiably upset if a DM made an unrealistic call, saying you can't grapple two people. As someone who grapples, knows grapplers, and has seen grapplers in action, it is entirely possible to control two opponents in this manner, especially with a strength and skill difference between the grappler and the grappled.

If anything, your point underlies a separate problem of D&D, which is that many possible real-life scenarios and options get shot down by DMs who personally don't believe they are possible. That's problematic from a game consistency perspective (because those scenarios are definitely possible in the real world) and from a rules perpective (because the rules allow it).

I 100% agree with you that some inconsistencies and loopholes are problematic. But this isn't one of them and actually undercuts your argument/helps to prove a counter-argument about shortcomings in DM adjudication.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Your characterisation of 4e is mistaken.

Just to give one example: the 4e fireball spell description is practically identical to that in Moldvay Basic. Both describe the range, the AoE, and mention the damage vs creatures. Both leave it as an issue of table adjudication to determine the effect the fireball has on objects/structures other than creatures.

I agree that there is a trend of increased spell description length from classic D&D through to 3E - following Ron Edwards I call it "karaoke", by which I mean that stuff that was originally someone's ruling at their table becomes codified for everyone else to follow. But I don't think it's tenable to notice that (i) 4e breaks from this trend, and goes back to very short, crisp descriptions, yet (ii) assert that 4e is an instance of the same trend. 4e breaks from the trend, disavows karaoke, and via p 42, its rules for dealing damage to objects and its skill challenge rules returns to the idea of adjudication at the table - though using a more "indie"-style framework for doing so than existed in the classic game.

It is a different approach, where through 3.5e they continued to add "karaoke" as you put it. The approach at the time was inclusive, in that anything is generally possible, except for the exclusions noted.

In 4e, they recognized that lists of exclusions not only get long, but doesn't really fix the problem because it continues to provide room for loopholes. The 4e rules continued the trend of more rules, but switched to an exclusive methodology. That is, you can only do what the rules say you can do. If it's not listed as a function of that ability, you can't do it. This generally allows for very concise entries. They further reduced the amount of text needed by the use of keywords.

So the trend continued - more rules and becoming more restrictive with each successive ruleset - but the presentation changed. That doesn't mean that there wasn't some portions that remained to be adjudicated, but it was definitely not the thrust of the ruleset.

Now ironically, with 4e, you could also do more. Why? Because it also continued the trend of more power, more abilities, more, well, seemingly everything (races, classes, etc.)

At least that's my perspective on it.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There is no contradiction here. The weakness is that you can't fight large (>2) groups of enemies using grappling. This isn't a limitation of, say, a greatsword or a two-weapon fighter, who can engage 3+ opponents simultaneously. The strength is that you can at least fight 2 enemies and you can do so very well, which wasn't possible under the rules of earlier editions. This makes plenty of sense in fantasy worlds and heroic games like D&D. If average human strength is 10 in the real world and most people are level 1, it is totally logical that a level 10 half-orc with 18+ strength would be more than capable of grappling two people using his hands to grab and then his body/legs/head to do the rest.

Even ignoring the game rules, this actually happens in real life, not in games. You see strong guys grab the lapel/collar of one opponent with his left hand, one opponent with his right hand, and then drag them around or throw them to the ground. I've seen this happen in and outside of gyms, particularly when the initiating grappler is trained/larger and the people being grappled are untrained/smaller. This reinforces that the rules are just replicating an out-of-game reality.

Players would be justifiably upset if a DM made an unrealistic call, saying you can't grapple two people. As someone who grapples, knows grapplers, and has seen grapplers in action, it is entirely possible to control two opponents in this manner, especially with a strength and skill difference between the grappler and the grappled.

If anything, your point underlies a separate problem of D&D, which is that many possible real-life scenarios and options get shot down by DMs who personally don't believe they are possible. That's problematic from a game consistency perspective (because those scenarios are definitely possible in the real world) and from a rules perpective (because the rules allow it).

I 100% agree with you that some inconsistencies and loopholes are problematic. But this isn't one of them and actually undercuts your argument/helps to prove a counter-argument about shortcomings in DM adjudication.

I actually removed the comment about the contradiction, because I misread his first line. But my point wasn't that you can't grapple two people. My point was about how the interpretation of the rule changes the existing fiction in the world, which he even acknowledges with his comment about earlier editions.

As for your point about what the DM knows/doesn't know, I'll agree with this. Which is one of the reasons why I will also research things to learn more. I don't have an issue with being able to grapple two people. However, I would argue that the situation is important and that it would be harder to grapple two people than one, and more importantly that the change in the rule from earlier editions (and his exploitation of it) changes the existing fiction of the world.

My example was going to be a Mom or Dad with two of their kids. It's possible, but not as easy as grabbing just one. Your examples also imply this, by saying it's more common/easier when the grappler is either larger (Mom and kids) or better trained (higher level, which would overcome the disadvantage, or proficient vs non proficient which also would do so), or stronger (18+ vs 10+ STR).

My general approach to something I question is:
1. Don't say no if possible, assign a DC and/or disadvantage
2. Find out what's really possible (if there's a real-world component, obviously this doesn't work within magic)

My issue is that in these types of guides that they aren't pointing out that it's possible because it is/is not in real life (although I misread his first statement and originally took it to be an acknowledgement of that), but that it's not only possible, but the preferred tactic because of the way the rules are written.

Another example in the document is his assertion that instead of making an escape attempt, make a shove attempt. His reasoning is that a shove attempt replaces an attack, so if you have multiple attacks, you have multiple chances to escape. Where an escape attempt replaces your action so you only have one chance.

My assumption is that pushing and shoving is generally one of the actions a person takes in general when attempting to escape a grapple, but even if you want to differentiate between different types of escape methods, a shove might be more effective because you are Strong rather than Dextrous, not because you "get more attempts."

I will also note that he does acknowledge that not all DMs will allow all of these options, which is good.

Sometimes rules corrections are needed, and those corrections might change the fiction of the world, but if the rule is considered in context of what it's modeling, then it's often not needed. The simple solution here is that when somebody attempts to grapple a second creature, the DM says, "OK, no problem, you'll just make your grapple check with disadvantage."

What's lacking nowadays are the types of articles that used to be a mainstay of Dragon magazine, which was discussing rules, suggesting new rules, or modifications to rules, or plain just assistance in adjudicating rules by putting them in a real world, and often historical context. Instead of a guide that shows how to exploit the way the rules are written, a guide that explains what the rule is modeling so that more DMs are aware that grappling two people is in fact possible. This would address your concern of DMs adjudicating through ignorance, and also hopefully keep the rule system more compact.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I recognise that no one actually assumes that it is impossible for a 5e army to advance in ranks at a steady run.

But I don't really understand where some D&Ders/posters draw these boundaries. Once it's acknowledged that there are cases - and not especially bizarre cases - that the mechanics don't handle well, I'm not sure why there is such frequent hostility to people posting about issues the mechanics have caused in their games.

Please don't mistake my frustration as hostility. It was more about how fruitless our branch of the discussion was becoming. You interpret things how you prefer, and I interpret them how I prefer....both are valid, and neither would ever really be a problem at the table. So at that point, the conversation was becoming pedantic on both sides as each of us simply restated our view.

There are certainly going to be instances of play where the mechanics of the game breakdown. That is unavoidable in 5E, and in any RPG I can think of. It's true of any simulation, really. So everyone has different such quirks that bother them, and others that don't. In this case, the stop-go effect of an aura on a dashing creature irked you and you addressed it, and it didn't irk me and I would leave it.

For me, I am willing to accept the construct of rounds and turns as a necessary "evil" in order for the game to function. If I run into issues where I feel that the round/turn cyclic mechanic impacts the game negatively in a meaningful way, then I'd make a judgment call on the fly and move forward. If there was something that was an issue that occurred with frequent consistency, then I'd discuss it with my group and figure out a way to houserule it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nothing I've claimed about your example is false is it? So instead of admitting your "experiment" was flawed and doesn't (at least as far as you've presented it in this thread) support a need for higher CR humanoids, you try to disingenuously paint me as "not acknowledging the wobbly aspects of the edition" ... you know as opposed to wanting an actual example of a correctly run scenario to support your assertion.

With the type of "logic" you're choosing to support your argument I'm not surprised you don't have anything more to add.

Oh, come on! This whole thread is better off because of CapnZapp's decision to drop the subject instead of arguing contentiously back and forth with you (and me, and everyone else who disagrees with him).

If you're looking for an endgame where CapnZapp says, "Oops, I changed my mind because you pointed out my error," well, that mostly just doesn't happen on the Internet. (It happens with some people and I highly value discourse with those people, but they are not the norm.)