D&D 5E L&L December 1st design finese. Part 2

[Bluenose]

D&DNext, as it is, is realy simple, the concentration rule is one of the more easy to use rules around the table, having damage interrupt it is also quite logical, also trying to use an heavy crossbow or a long spear on some who stand right next to you is hard and it's also logical.

Evidence. please? It may sound logical, but then a lot of people thing a greatsword should be hard to use in a 5' passage. And they're wrong.

 

[Minigiant]

Just a clarification: Concetration rules applies only to the spells which say that need concetration in order to go on like hold person and fly or is something else? If this is the case means that a mage can hurl fireballs in mellee without fear of the enemies?

Yes. A mage can shoot fireballs pointblank but there's that whole area of effect thing.

The point is that a large percentage of the caster's spells are given flaws to make melee casting a bad idea either by losing the spell or getting in the spell's effect.

---

Compartmentalizing rules to who'll use them is a good idea for new players but wouldn't a melee fighter's player want to know that rushing enemy archers and casters nerfs them.

 

[Blackwarder]

Evidence. please? It may sound logical, but then a lot of people thing a greatsword should be hard to use in a 5' passage. And they're wrong.

Evidence for what?

Warder

 

[Balesir]

Evidence for what?

I'm guessing "evidence for the universal model of reality that you are appealing to".

You are assuming that we all have a shared, universal and correct model of how reality behaves. If there is one thing that learning and science have taught us it is that there are two things wrong with the "universal model of reality". The first is that it isn't universal and the second is that it doesn't accurately model reality.

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm guessing "evidence for the universal model of reality that you are appealing to".

You are assuming that we all have a shared, universal and correct model of how reality behaves. If there is one thing that learning and science have taught us it is that there are two things wrong with the "universal model of reality". The first is that it isn't universal and the second is that it doesn't accurately model reality.

I'm appealing to something? That's news to me.

Warder

 

[Bluenose]

Evidence for what?

Warder

In this particular case, evidence that a long spear is hard to use against someone standing five feet away, which is the bit I'd highlighted when I quoted your post.

In more general terms, what [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] says about models of reality, and how they can be wrong, and how they can be different from person to person, and on how that interacts with a game where Mearls model of reality is being used to benefit people who follow that, and how people whose views of what is realistic (which may or may not be more accurate than Mearls) will have to learn what the rules benefit regardless of how much Mearls would like to allow people to follow their natural understanding of how the world works.

 

[fjw70]

I agree that how reality works can vary from person to person, but expectations of how the game works can vary depending on experience with previous editions as well.

 

[Zaukrie]

That all works for me.

 

[Blackwarder]

In this particular case, evidence that a long spear is hard to use against someone standing five feet away, which is the bit I'd highlighted when I quoted your post.

No problem mate, you buy the plane ticket I'll supply the spear, bow and beers and I'll give you all the evidence in the world.

Warder

 

[DEFCON 1]

All these compartmentalised, individual rules sound like they'll make things a lot harder for the DM, because he can't really ignore any of them.

He needs to know the Concentration rules, because his NPCs will be trying to disrupt the PC Casters' concentration, and because in any given session he may have to run at least one caster NPC. Likewise the specific rules for pretty much every class. Likewise the rules for any specific weapon, because an NPC might be wielding it next combat.

That's always been the case, but the more specific, corner-case rules the game contains, the harder it will be for DMs to master them.

Actually... the DM probably could ignore any of them if he didn't want to be bothered to learn them. His NPCs don't need to disrupt the PC caster's concentration, he can ignore the special properties of weapons his NPCs use, and any special rules the PCs have for their classes can be ignored until such time as the players themselves tell him/her what their abilities do when they come up.

Will that change how that specific DM's encounters run? Sure. But at the end of the day, if it makes the game run in a manner the DM and players are happy with... who cares that some rules are ignored? People have been ignoring D&D rules they didn't like for decades now.