D&D 5E Low CRs and "Boring" Monsters: Ogre

[FormerlyHemlock]

So one tree alone is more powerful than one tree among many? That can't possibly be right. The tree you're not throwing (right now) cannot possibly affect the flight characteristics of the tree you are throwing right now.

This reminds me of Galileo's reasoning when he determined (incorrectly, as it turns out) that falling speed must necessarily be independent of object weight, because otherwise an anvil tied to a feather must fall both slower and faster (in a vacuum) than an anvil and a feather falling separately.

(As it turns out, an anvil tied to a feather falls very slightly faster than an anvil alone or a feather alone, because the anvil + feather exert an ever-so-slightly greater gravitational pull on the earth, causing the earth to move ever-so-slightly faster towards the feather + anvil. But the velocity of the anvil + feather relative to the earth's original velocity vector is not different than the velocity of the anvil alone. Galileo's logic was wrong, but his conclusions were practically correct.)

In short: it could possibly be correct, and it's interesting to consider the implications of a system where it is correct.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In short: it could possibly be correct, and it's interesting to consider the implications of a system where it is correct.

Sure, but the world where that is the case is a ridiculous one, which is only interesting because it's ridiculous. It might make for an appropriate encounter on the Discworld, but it isn't suitable for any RPG that is even remotely attempting to be serious.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So one tree alone is more powerful than one tree among many?

Not sure how that follows, but, on a tangent perhaps, more significant. It's just human nature to place more significance on a unique or rare thing than a common thing.

As far as the "...won't be doing it on a regular basis..." reasoning goes in the context of D&D, it's pretty well established in the D&D paradigm that something you get to do less often gets to be more effective. FWIW.

 

[Imaro]

So one tree alone is more powerful than one tree among many? That can't possibly be right. The tree you're not throwing (right now) cannot possibly affect the flight characteristics of the tree you are throwing right now.

It's 4e logic... I know [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] favors 4e. Remember he's asking me how he would do it.

 

[Imaro]

Yes.

Looking for RAW is rather a mistake in the first place, the rules aren't written in that pedantic a way nor with sufficiently precise jargon, they're meant to be interpreted and ruled upon by the DM. They're a starting point. That does, IMHO, encourage modding the rules, as well - or, at least, not discourage modding them in the way a less-ambiguous/more-balanced presentation might.

But, it's not like you have to mod the rules, you can just make rulings, instead.

So edition warring it is since this has been the case with all editions of D&D...

 

[Tony Vargas]

So edition warring it is

Obviously, if you wish to engage in edition warring, I can't stop you.

since this has been the case with all editions of D&D...

5e has consciously gone for a more 'natural language' approach, eschewing the kind of jargon that makes it practical to try to tease out a definitive 'RAW.' But the decision to identify, debate, and enshrine RAW over DM judgement is something we do, not something the game does.

I'm just pointing out that RAW-obsession is a fruitless thing to inflict upon 5e, with it's "rulings not rules" philosophy. One could, though, make they're rulings into rules, in advance - make the game their own by codifying it to the degree they're comfortable with.
That, too, would be exercising DM Empowerment.
Quite a lot of exercise.

 

[Imaro]

Obviously, if you wish to engage in edition warring, I can't stop you.

5e has consciously gone for a more 'natural language' approach, eschewing the kind of jargon that makes it practical to try to tease out a definitive 'RAW.' But the decision to identify, debate, and enshrine RAW over DM judgement is something we do, not something the game does.

I'm just pointing out that RAW-obsession is a fruitless thing to inflict upon 5e, with it's "rulings not rules" philosophy. One could, though, make they're rulings into rules, in advance - make the game their own by codifying it to the degree they're comfortable with.
That, too, would be exercising DM Empowerment.
Quite a lot of exercise.

Having natural language does not exclude 5e from having actual rules. Like any other edition utilization and modification of said rules is up to the DM.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Having natural language does not exclude 5e from having actual rules.

Natural language is simply more ambiguous than jargon. You can parse an agonizingly precise and jargon-filled set of rules and identify exactly how "It Is Written." Natural language leaves a lot more room for interpretation, which makes whingeing about RAW that much more pointless.

Like any other edition utilization and modification of said rules is up to the DM.

And interpreting and ruling on them. 5e, like 1e, just gives the DM a lot of latitude when it comes to interpreting the rules and making rulings. Where the rules don't leave you some room for interpretation, they're often calling on you to make rulings. That central role of the DM in making the rules work creates an expectation of DM intervention, and is part of the foundation of 5e's DM Empowerment.

 

[Dualazi]

D&D without the role playing elements is Wrath of Asherleon. Which is, wait for it, a boardgame. If you take away the role playing out of an RPG, all you're left with is a game. This is not rocket science. This is literally the definition of what those terms mean.

It actually isn't, which is why your claims of supposed objectivity fall on deaf ears. The only thing "Role-Playing Game" means is that it is a game where you play a role. There's no distinction whether this role has to be mechanical or thematic, and playing a fighter built around tanking that never utters a word or improvises actions is still roleplaying. Maybe not the kind you enjoy (and I probably wouldn't either) but it definitely still is occupying a role within the group and story.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It actually isn't, which is why your claims of supposed objectivity fall on deaf ears. The only thing "Role-Playing Game" means is that it is a game where you play a role. There's no distinction whether this role has to be mechanical or thematic, and playing a fighter built around tanking that never utters a word or improvises actions is still roleplaying. Maybe not the kind you enjoy (and I probably wouldn't either) but it definitely still is occupying a role within the group and story.

So why are games like Wrath of A and all the other WOTC games like that called boardgames and not role playing games? I've got a real good idea, but I'd like to see you try to explain it.