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

[JamesonCourage]

I really, really disliked this article. He's not eliminating exceptions, he's just changing some of them from one exception to another, and then putting it in an entirely different part of the book. For example, ranged weapons used to provoke an attack when fired in melee, and it's listed with all the other things that provoke attacks; now, they might provide disadvantage in melee, and it's listed under equipment.

This is a terrible change, in my opinion, if you're going for "elegance" in your game. You've kept the same amount of complexity, you've just made the exceptions even more varied and moved things around and made it harder to find. Color me unimpressed.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The issue of course is this creates a rule both the archer and target must know.

I've had a "manifesto" for several years now to hand to players. One of the tenets in it is this:

Players must learn the rules. Nobody needs to pass a written test - not even the DM - but it's reasonable to expect that players read the entire Players Handbook and be able to understand it. Everyone new to the game must accept that they will need to do a lot of reading and put effort into learning the game, and there is a lot of information they need to absorb right from the start. The basics have always been learnable in perhaps an hour or maybe a game session. After a few sessions of play they should not require having basics repeatedly explained. Pay attention to the application of the rules by other players and their characters, not just your own. Players who can't be bothered to learn the game should only be given so much leeway before a DM asks them to leave. Only if the DM informs players up front that the rules don't matter, or the player actually has learning disabilities is anyone excused from achieving a general, functional knowledge of the game.

And people are talking as if general commentary on IDEAS for a game system that is still in development, still very actively changing (such is my impression), IS the new game system and despite not having seen the final product which is, what, a year away yet, are complaining that it is not yet organized so that they can find rules. Really?

 

[Balesir]

You don't think you'd have an easier time shooting a target 10 feet away then one that's in your face and messing with you?

Easier to hit a stationary, inanimate target at ten feet than a melee combatant "in my face"? Sure! But that's not really an applicable comparison. The situation, were it to be played out in the real world, would be a lot more complex than that, and would rely on a number of things, including but not limited to:

- Is the archer also a trained melee combatant? If so, their instinct will be to attack in a way that will firstly block or nullify the enemy's attacking weapon and cause the enemy damage as a secondary effect. That would suggest something like shoving the opponent's weapon aside with his bow arm or dodging back away from the weapon simultaneously with loosing the arrow. To hit a moving target you have to move as you loose anyway - no big deal there.

- Does the archer have an arrow nocked? If so, drawing and loosing is a matter of a split second of opportunity; if not then a new arrow must be drawn and nocked - an action at least as difficult as drawing a sword or other melee weapon. Given the choice between taking out a melee weapon or taking out an arrow when engaged in melee combat, I know what I'd do!

- Is the melee combatant well trained in melee combat? If they are they will want to do just as the melee-trained archer, above. They would try to neutralise the archer's bow while secondarily striking the archer; this would suggest an attack on the bow or designed to deflect the bow from a potential attack on the melee combatant.

How does all that map to "free attacks" or "penalties to the to hit roll"? I have no clue.

That is your opinion on the matter. It can still be lethal, but IMO it won't have its full potential for tissue damage without swinging room.

A sword is a subtle and lethal tool for killing - you don't swing the ruddy thing like a wood axe!

More prosaically, any serious melee attack should act to both block, deflect or evade the opponent's weapon and strike the opponent as part of the same fluid motion. Swinging a weapon in a big arc will serve to telegraph the path of attack and present an opening the size of a barn door for a counter. In other words, it will get you killed quite surely and quite quickly.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I disliked that spells/ranged weapons provoked opportunity attacks and that you couldn't hit somebody with a reach weapon if they were right by you. I find that giving disadvantage to the spells/ranged/reach weapon user on the attack is more appropriate.

As noted earlier, the "get free attack against you" penalty was just too big, so you could spend feats or skill points to just ignore it. Which is why my 4e Mage is using a staff with Staff Expertise (don't provoke with ranged attacks). Having disadvantage is a lesser penalty, so maybe they can drop the skills/feats to circumvent the penalty.

Anyway changes to rules like this won't make or break the game. I am more curious to how well they fix up the math issues and monster creation. Do they end up with a wizard that feels more like a 3e wizardwhen it comes to utility, but manage to control the quadratic vs linear power scaling? Will they manage to create glass cannon wizards, or will they just be bland?

 

[Blackwarder]

Easier to hit a stationary, inanimate target at ten feet than a melee combatant "in my face"? Sure! But that's not really an applicable comparison. The situation, were it to be played out in the real world, would be a lot more complex than that, and would rely on a number of things, including but not limited to:

- Is the archer also a trained melee combatant? If so, their instinct will be to attack in a way that will firstly block or nullify the enemy's attacking weapon and cause the enemy damage as a secondary effect. That would suggest something like shoving the opponent's weapon aside with his bow arm or dodging back away from the weapon simultaneously with loosing the arrow. To hit a moving target you have to move as you loose anyway - no big deal there.

- Does the archer have an arrow nocked? If so, drawing and loosing is a matter of a split second of opportunity; if not then a new arrow must be drawn and nocked - an action at least as difficult as drawing a sword or other melee weapon. Given the choice between taking out a melee weapon or taking out an arrow when engaged in melee combat, I know what I'd do!

- Is the melee combatant well trained in melee combat? If they are they will want to do just as the melee-trained archer, above. They would try to neutralise the archer's bow while secondarily striking the archer; this would suggest an attack on the bow or designed to deflect the bow from a potential attack on the melee combatant.

How does all that map to "free attacks" or "penalties to the to hit roll"? I have no clue.


A sword is a subtle and lethal tool for killing - you don't swing the ruddy thing like a wood axe!

More prosaically, any serious melee attack should act to both block, deflect or evade the opponent's weapon and strike the opponent as part of the same fluid motion. Swinging a weapon in a big arc will serve to telegraph the path of attack and present an opening the size of a barn door for a counter. In other words, it will get you killed quite surely and quite quickly.

A hand gun is a most easy to use weapon (much easier than a bow or a crossbow) but in professional armed service we are still get taught to avoid pointing a gun at someone who's at arms length because his chances to distrupt your shot are much higher than if here were 10 feet away, you can still do it but it will be harder.

Believe me, I've been trained in firearms and even using an assault rifle, when the target is standing right infornt of you less than a meter away, unless you are already set to fire SOP calls for a melee attack to drop the target and than finish him with a burst.

So that's why I find the notion of having disadvantage on ranged attacks in melee logical, mind you I have no problem with the short bow not having this trait to distinguish it from the longbow, after all it's a game not a perfect simulation.

As for the longspear, ever tried to control a 3.5-4 meters poll? It's about the same as a longspear (or a pike) and it's very unwieldy, in fact, unless you are part of a group a longspear is such an unwieldy weapon that when faced with an enemy your better bet is to throw down the spear one the enemy is right on you and pull another weapon.

Warder

 

[howandwhy99]

The principles in this article are steps in the right direction. They don't necessarily end in rules I would use, but the movement is there and the intent well meaning.

1. "Think Locally to Keep Rules Invisible" This rule I disagree with. I believe elegance in games comes from fewer rules, but a higher degree of interactivity between them in game play.

However, keeping rules unknown to the players is at the core of D&D. In the case presented we have an exceptions-based game design where players at start only need to know how the powers on their sheets work. As many have pointed out, Referees / DMs are in the hot seat, but knowing the rules well is one of the musts if they are going to succeed in that position.

What may result in a problem for a modular version of D&D is if there are so many rule exceptions, they become unwieldy (heh) for a newbie DM to handle. I admit there is always a learning curve to being the ref running a game, but it shouldn't begin too steeply. Make the DM's learning a slow progression over the course of a campaign - just like the players.

2. "The final principle of design finesse ties into the idea of creating rules that stem from the players' understanding of how the game is supposed to work, even without any knowledge of the rules."

While arguments over fighting in melee with bows may be eating away the credibility of this idea, I wholeheartedly agree with it. The rules are designed as clues. Falling incurs damage because most people believe this in reality. The trick is not to run the game as a simulation of our world, but of a fantasy world with its own reality. The rules must remain consistent.

Where the game begins then is with simple, easy to learn through trial and error, commonplace rules. These things are there almost always in effect from word one. In fact, some aren't difficult to discern from character generation. Later challenges come in with the edge cases, cases that help to succeed, and when studied lead to entirely different understandings of the original rules. New discoveries of how the previous rules interacted shift players understanding of the game and retain their interest and enjoyment.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I'm glad that concentration spells can be broken by damage now, but I hope there's some kind of check involved so that the loss of the spell isn't automatic. Also, what's this about bards and paladins not having concentration spells? He says "It only comes into play for those who want to use buff spells or long-lasting control spells," but many bard spells fit that description. And last I checked, bardic music used the concentration mechanic. Has this been removed? I hope not. Having the option to hit an annoying, singing bard with a weapon to make him shut up is rather gratifying.

He keeps talking about wanting simplicity and cutting down the number of rules a player needs to learn down to a bare minimum, but then I can ask why they insist on giving classes like paladins and rangers spells. Especially for rangers, spells are really not needed or even thematically appropriate for the class. IMO, spells for these classes should be optional, and those that choose to take them should be prepared to learn a couple more rules.

As for the idea of giving ranged attackers disadvantage in melee, I suppose that's an acceptable compromise, at least from a purely mechanic perspective. I just keep thinking of that scene in the Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring where the fellowship is walking through the woods and suddenly several elves pop out of the trees and have bows pointed at them at point blank range. Should those elves have been 5 feet further away? Were they stupid to be so close? On the contrary, it seems to me like having an arrow pointed at someone that's right in front of you would make it pretty hard to miss!

 

[Mistwell]

He keeps talking about wanting simplicity and cutting down the number of rules a player needs to learn down to a bare minimum, but then I can ask why they insist on giving classes like paladins and rangers spells. Especially for rangers, spells are really not needed or even thematically appropriate for the class. IMO, spells for these classes should be optional, and those that choose to take them should be prepared to learn a couple more rules.

I think it's thematically appropriate for Rangers to have spells, I think a lot of versions of the game had them with spells (I think all but 4e), and I think a majority of the feedback they've gotten on Rangers is that people like that they have spells.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I would say make the concentration check a saving throw. 1 through 9 is a fail and 10 through 20 is a pass. 50/50 chance.

 

[gyor]

Mike Mearls said the PHB1 would have domains with diety examples like the packets on twitter so I asked if if Paladin Oaths would have diety examples as well and he said he anticaped so. Do with that what you will.