D&D 5E Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)

[D'karr]

I basically agree here, but I think you're looking at it backwards. Rather than change "prone" to a word that means something more in line with the mechanics, I think it would be smarter to change "prone" to be a mechanical effect that is in line with the way the language is used.

The reason is because the word conjures a mental image -- it's an imagination aid. It has a clear meaning in the fiction. Words that are more specific to those effects aren't always as natural.

I think the problem is that the label then limits you. Is prone, prone or does supine also apply?

Which is the reason that I've said that a non-common language jargon for conditions is better, then the common language descriptors can fit into it.

Let's say I call the condition "UNSTEADY", "OFF-BALANCE", "OFF-FOOTED", "HAMMERED", or any of a multitude of LABELS that I might want to use. Then in the mechanics of the condition I specify the mechanical consequences of having that condition. In addition I add examples, and I make it clear that these are not ALL INCLUSIVE, of things that could count as the condition. I've eliminated a large portion of the problem with using common language labels. Such as "bloodied" with a skeleton, or "prone" with an ooze.

Example:

Condition - HAMBONED
Mechanics:

• - 2 to attacks.
• Grants combat advantage to adjacent melee attackers
• Ranged Attackers have a -2 penalty to attacking targets with this condition.
• A move action is required to remove this condition

The following are examples (not all inclusive) of situations where a target would be considered HAMBONED:
Prone
Supine
Off-Balance
Hanging off the edge of a cliff, etc.
DM Discretion
​

With a condition like that there is no argument of whether an ooze can be HAMBONED. It's clear that there are multiple ways of assigning that condition.

An ability that does damage and the target is HAMBONED now works on all issues, and when the DM decides that it does not work, he's got complete discretion to adjudicate it as necessary.

The arguments about prone oozes were as entertaining to me as the argument about carrying bags of rats to continue a great cleave - absurd, and annoying and clearly an exaggeration meant to make the rules appear more ridiculous than they already are in most instances, when a DM can easily make a discretionary ruling.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

<snip>

Good post, I think you nailed it, and I fully agree; that makes complete sense to me and was always how I interpreted it. I tried to XP you but, alas, could not

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Prone describes being flat on the ground, on your belly. It cam also describe lying flat on the ground, but I think because prone position is such a specific thing, it could be a bit confusing for what it has encompassed in D&D. But frankly, not able to think of a better word off the top of my head.

Yeah, I think my point was that (say in 4e) the Prone condition DOES mechanically give you the effects of lying flat on the ground. Maybe a better idea is to separate the concepts of "effect" and "condition". Knock Down Assault knocks a target down. The result, for your average target, is it ends up Prone. I guess if you want to get into a detailed system then you can literally have different conditions for specific effects depending on whatever (either codified or by DM judgment). Again, that can be combined with the (dis)advantage concept, so you could have knockdown causing disadvantage and generating a condition, which is normally prone, but could be 'pushed' or 'dazed' or whatever for some other type of target besides a humanoid.

Frankly I think it more work than it is worth compared with just saying "hey, OK, maybe the ooze isn't actually prone, but the mechanics are good enough, big deal". It seems to me like a matter of fighting the battles that really matter.

 

[bogmad]

Maybe, with regards to oozes, it's a consideration of "how does one physically disadvantage a mindless, shapeless being that doesn't care whether you wiggle a sword in it or spread it on toast?"

Sure you can trip a guy and knock him off his feet, but why is it mechanically just as easy to knock said formless, mindless puddle so that it's shaken and has to coalesce for a turn before moving five feet in any direction? Just to save a halfling with a dagger from getting his feelings hurt?

Doing all the semantic gymnastics to make "proning" an ooze makes sense is simply way more confusing than simply saying "prone" means to knock something off it's feet." No feet? You can't prone that then. Simple.

Granting disadvantage to an ooze? Now that's more workable a concept, but a halfling with a dagger shouldn't be able to do that just as easily and with the same mechanism that he uses to knock a guy off his feet.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the problem is that the label then limits you. Is prone, prone or does supine also apply?

Which is the reason that I've said that a non-common language jargon for conditions is better, then the common language descriptors can fit into it.

Let's say I call the condition "UNSTEADY", "OFF-BALANCE", "OFF-FOOTED", "HAMMERED", or any of a multitude of LABELS that I might want to use. Then in the mechanics of the condition I specify the mechanical consequences of having that condition. In addition I add examples, and I make it clear that these are not ALL INCLUSIVE, of things that could count as the condition. I've eliminated a large portion of the problem with using common language labels. Such as "bloodied" with a skeleton, or "prone" with an ooze.

Example:
Condition - HAMBONED
Mechanics:

• - 2 to attacks.
• Grants combat advantage to adjacent melee attackers
• Ranged Attackers have a -2 penalty to attacking targets with this condition.
• A move action is required to remove this condition

The following are examples (not all inclusive) of situations where a target would be considered HAMBONED:
Prone
Supine
Off-Balance
Hanging off the edge of a cliff, etc.
DM Discretion

With a condition like that there is no argument of whether an ooze can be HAMBONED. It's clear that there are multiple ways of assigning that condition.

An ability that does damage and the target is HAMBONED now works on all issues, and when the DM decides that it does not work, he's got complete discretion to adjudicate it as necessary.

The arguments about prone oozes were as entertaining to me as the argument about carrying bags of rats to continue a great cleave - absurd, and annoying and clearly an exaggeration meant to make the rules appear more ridiculous than they already are in most instances, when a DM can easily make a discretionary ruling.

Honestly I hate it. The design concept of making 99% of all cases less clear and harder to understand in order to eliminate some corner-case that comes up 2-3 times per campaign in most cases is simply a bad design decision. That's exactly why 4e didn't do that. See my suggestion right above, its also clunky (and in many ways similar to yours).

 

[D'karr]

Granting disadvantage to an ooze? Now that's more workable a concept, but a halfling with a dagger shouldn't be able to do that just as easily and with the same mechanism that he uses to knock a guy off his feet.

Why not? If the mechanical effect is disadvantage, why is it more difficult for a halfling to impose that condition on an ooze than a dude?

That is why the language label of "prone" is a poor one to use for a general purpose condition. It is limited to being off your feet face down in the common language, but in mechanical terms all it's doing is imposing a mechanical penalty. A mechanical penalty that would make the exact amount of sense for an ooze that is "overextended" and needs to rearrange itself before attacking, or to a guy that is laying belly first on the ground and needs to get up to attack.

 

[bogmad]

duplicate post

 

[bogmad]

duplicate

 

[bogmad]

dupe

 

[bogmad]

Why not? If the mechanical effect is disadvantage, why is it more difficult for a halfling to impose that condition on an ooze than a dude?

That is why the language label of "prone" is a poor one to use for a general purpose condition. It is limited to being off your feet face down in the common language, but in mechanical terms all it's doing is imposing a mechanical penalty. A mechanical penalty that would make the exact amount of sense for an ooze that is "overextended" and needs to rearrange itself before attacking, or to a guy that is laying belly first on the ground and needs to get up to attack.

It's clearly easier (or it should be in my opinion) to disadvantage a vertebrate humanoid than a formless puddle.

How is, say, a "trip" maneuver that lets you disadvantage something by "tripping" it it applicable towards an ooze? Is "trip" too specific a word for a general purpose maneuver? Do we need a maneuver that is simply a "disadvantage" maneuver that requires the player to describe just how he stretches an ooze out to overextend itself?


It gets back to the whole idea of story (narrative) taking precedence over rules. How about rules that use words that clearly and narratively describe what happens instead of inventing rules that require us to provide narrative justifications for effects?

If it's easier to understand the effect of a rule than the narrative explanation of said rule, maybe it's not the best rule.