Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7717463" data-attributes="member: 71699">In D&D? Multiclassing. Ability scores. Any time one player buffs another player. Bonus actions. The Vancian spell system. Magic items. Any time players creatively combine effects. One of the basic principles of the system (as cited by its designers) - that specific trumps general - comes from the mode of rules deconstruction that yields combinatorial mechanics. An enormous part of why D&D has remained interesting to play for so long is because of its deconstructed and recombinable mechanics. I've been designing games professionally for nearly three decades and what I'm in love with are design patterns that deliver better play to gamers.I feel like such arguments largely rest upon a misconstrual of how the fiction connects with the rules. I hope I'm right to say that our shared fiction presupposes a continuous flow of combat: one actor does not wait for the other actor to neatly finish up before doing anything. A great way to represent that has turned out to be a series of I-go-you-go resolution steps structured using initiative and action types (move, action, bonus, reaction). I-go-you-go contains some flaws, one of the more notorious being where I-hit-you-then-become-untargetable-before-you-go. It is basic to the balance of 5e that generally that shouldn't be possible, but we love enabling players to conditionally break even basic rules, and this is no exception. At 8th level, a Shadow Monk can break that piece of balance through taking 2 levels of Rogue. At 14th level a Ranger taking the Mobile feat can break it. At 4th level, a Rogue using Cunning Action and Mobile can break it. Rogues are best at that kind of thing. And then, let's also come back to the time aspect of combat. A 6th level Shadow Monk can Attack and then use Shadow Step to teleport away, and then over 6 further seconds Hide. And if they truly chose a spot that their opponent can't locate, they won't be found before then. What they cannot do is deny their opponent the chance to get at least one action back in that sequence. That is reasonable because otherwise we suppose their opponent to be inert when we know in the fiction that both are acting simultaneously. To an extent here, you're simply wishing to have your cake and eat it to: you can do exactly what you want, but you can't get all the advantages you hoped for.Your supposed problem isn't one of what is possible, it is only one of how and when it is possible, and what it overshadows.</blockquote>

Verification