Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do YOU handle a Fastball Special, and other team manuevers?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7589538" data-attributes="member: 59848"><p>That sounds more like a problem with individual players rather than a problem with optimization. Everyone, I don't care who you are, feels good winning. But you can do that, share the spotlight, and win as a group. Just because these ideas are mutually exclusive for one player does not mean they truly are.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you are conflating how you see 5e with how everyone, or maybe most people, see 5e. That is, just because this is how you view 5e does not mean that it is the only way one can view 5e. Reflavored, 5e can easily turn into a Supers game. Or it can be super gritty. 5e was indeed made to streamline and simplify rules. But the greatest strength of 5e is being intentionally vague using natural language, stressing the importance of DM adjudicating the rules, and allowing room for the DM to make these decisions by NOT having rules for everything. Within that space, there are many ways to interpret or play D&D. And we have examples in this very thread of people who disagree with your take and find that things like the Fastball Special in particular, and throwing people in general, are well within the bounds of 5e. So no, this is not the hill that 5e chooses to die on. This is the hill you have chosen. </p><p></p><p>Additionally, I have played 4e and hated it. The rules made every class and ability too similar. It felt like it didn't matter if I played a wizard or fighter, they generally did the same things, but with different names. Also, please don't make suggestions to me as if I have an issue with 5e. I don't. I make it work just fine for my needs and enjoyment, as well as the needs of my group. Making that statement that I should try 4e really felt like you were dismissing my playstyle as wrong or unfit for 5e and you are the gatekeeper for what is right and appropriate for 5e, which is a bit insulting. I'm not saying that was your intention, but that is how it sounded. There is no right way to play or enjoy D&D in general, and 5e in particular. And suggesting so is somewhat elitist.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nothing wrong with rules. But you seem to see an absence of a specific rule as an indication that it can't or shouldn't be done. Meanwhile, I believe the absence of a specific rule in 5e is instead a purposeful choice to give power to the DM to decide how something should be handled. This is especially true for edge cases of things not likely to come up in typical game scenarios. Unlike previous editions, 5e seems to be purposefully vague and incomplete to give more power to the DM and limit the disruption of rules lawyers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, a player can kill a person with their thumb by RAW. Unarmed strikes are only vaguely described as punches, kicks, or headbutts. But a player can describe their unarmed attack as a strike or pressure of their thumb without changing the mechanics of the attack. And a player can subdue and even kill enemies in this fashion. Even faster if they are a monk or have the tavern brawler feat. Describing the unarmed strike differently doesn't change the mechanics. Just because you can't see how things might be achieved mechanically doesnt mean one of your players couldn't find a creative and appropriate solution.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you set a DC 9000 or some other unreasonable or impossible difficulty, then the player making the attempt knowing this is not trying to help the group overcome the challenge. Which, I thought you said was important for the group to come together and cooperate towards common goals. But if a player is trying things that are "cool" but not doing much or even worsening the party's chances of achieving victory by not taking a more typical course of action, then they are just as much selfishly stealing the spotlight as the min-maxers you seem to dislike so much.</p><p></p><p>Additionally, whether intentional or not, you are conditioning players to solve problems and overcome challenges by only using their tools in traditional, accepted, and well defined ways. You are limiting opportunities for creative problem-solving and reinforcing that players only use their skills and abilities strictly by raw. This reduces player's ability to think critically about what their powers or abilities are intended for, or what they could achieve in a grounded, living world that is not always easily defined or definable mechanically.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>My issue is not with whether something is an action, bonus action, move action, or whatever. My issue is if someone uses their action for something reasonable given the context, then it should have some reasonable chance of success. Action economy is a factor, but so is resource expenditure, the context of the scene, and the parameters of risk. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And whose to say someone trying a Fastball Special (as an example) and working out how to achieve this feat won't lead a player to be creative in other ways that will be their own? The Fastball special can be a literal and figurative jumping off point. Attempting it requires not just an understanding of the rules, but extending those rules by taking into account the context of the scenario, challenge, resources available, and the RAI and RAF which are equally important as RAW.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 7589538, member: 59848"] That sounds more like a problem with individual players rather than a problem with optimization. Everyone, I don't care who you are, feels good winning. But you can do that, share the spotlight, and win as a group. Just because these ideas are mutually exclusive for one player does not mean they truly are. I think you are conflating how you see 5e with how everyone, or maybe most people, see 5e. That is, just because this is how you view 5e does not mean that it is the only way one can view 5e. Reflavored, 5e can easily turn into a Supers game. Or it can be super gritty. 5e was indeed made to streamline and simplify rules. But the greatest strength of 5e is being intentionally vague using natural language, stressing the importance of DM adjudicating the rules, and allowing room for the DM to make these decisions by NOT having rules for everything. Within that space, there are many ways to interpret or play D&D. And we have examples in this very thread of people who disagree with your take and find that things like the Fastball Special in particular, and throwing people in general, are well within the bounds of 5e. So no, this is not the hill that 5e chooses to die on. This is the hill you have chosen. Additionally, I have played 4e and hated it. The rules made every class and ability too similar. It felt like it didn't matter if I played a wizard or fighter, they generally did the same things, but with different names. Also, please don't make suggestions to me as if I have an issue with 5e. I don't. I make it work just fine for my needs and enjoyment, as well as the needs of my group. Making that statement that I should try 4e really felt like you were dismissing my playstyle as wrong or unfit for 5e and you are the gatekeeper for what is right and appropriate for 5e, which is a bit insulting. I'm not saying that was your intention, but that is how it sounded. There is no right way to play or enjoy D&D in general, and 5e in particular. And suggesting so is somewhat elitist. Nothing wrong with rules. But you seem to see an absence of a specific rule as an indication that it can't or shouldn't be done. Meanwhile, I believe the absence of a specific rule in 5e is instead a purposeful choice to give power to the DM to decide how something should be handled. This is especially true for edge cases of things not likely to come up in typical game scenarios. Unlike previous editions, 5e seems to be purposefully vague and incomplete to give more power to the DM and limit the disruption of rules lawyers. Actually, a player can kill a person with their thumb by RAW. Unarmed strikes are only vaguely described as punches, kicks, or headbutts. But a player can describe their unarmed attack as a strike or pressure of their thumb without changing the mechanics of the attack. And a player can subdue and even kill enemies in this fashion. Even faster if they are a monk or have the tavern brawler feat. Describing the unarmed strike differently doesn't change the mechanics. Just because you can't see how things might be achieved mechanically doesnt mean one of your players couldn't find a creative and appropriate solution. If you set a DC 9000 or some other unreasonable or impossible difficulty, then the player making the attempt knowing this is not trying to help the group overcome the challenge. Which, I thought you said was important for the group to come together and cooperate towards common goals. But if a player is trying things that are "cool" but not doing much or even worsening the party's chances of achieving victory by not taking a more typical course of action, then they are just as much selfishly stealing the spotlight as the min-maxers you seem to dislike so much. Additionally, whether intentional or not, you are conditioning players to solve problems and overcome challenges by only using their tools in traditional, accepted, and well defined ways. You are limiting opportunities for creative problem-solving and reinforcing that players only use their skills and abilities strictly by raw. This reduces player's ability to think critically about what their powers or abilities are intended for, or what they could achieve in a grounded, living world that is not always easily defined or definable mechanically. My issue is not with whether something is an action, bonus action, move action, or whatever. My issue is if someone uses their action for something reasonable given the context, then it should have some reasonable chance of success. Action economy is a factor, but so is resource expenditure, the context of the scene, and the parameters of risk. And whose to say someone trying a Fastball Special (as an example) and working out how to achieve this feat won't lead a player to be creative in other ways that will be their own? The Fastball special can be a literal and figurative jumping off point. Attempting it requires not just an understanding of the rules, but extending those rules by taking into account the context of the scenario, challenge, resources available, and the RAI and RAF which are equally important as RAW. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do YOU handle a Fastball Special, and other team manuevers?
Top