D&D 5E (2014) Observations and opinions after 8 levels and a dragon fight

[Cyberen]

Here's a question. Can blindsight see through walls? So long as the range is far enough I mean.

I would certainly rule that a white dragon's blindsight would perceive through ice, a blue dragon's through sand, etc. Through stone ? I don't think so... maybe for red great wyrms ?
I would give a demilich X-Ray vision.
For grimlocks, I would frame blindsight as mere colour.

 

[the Jester]

Here's a question. Can blindsight see through walls? So long as the range is far enough I mean.

Here's another, of equal interest (to me, at least).

What if that wall is glass, i.e. a window? Does that change the answer?

 

[Dausuul]

Here's another, of equal interest (to me, at least).

What if that wall is glass, i.e. a window? Does that change the answer?

I don't see any reason it would. Blindsight is very explicitly described as being perception without sight. So why would the visual properties of objects (e.g., transparency) make any difference?

The DM might rule that a particular monster's blindsight can work through thin barriers, like thin wooden walls or heavy curtains. In that case it would probably work through a glass window too. But if a heavy curtain can block blindsight, then so should a window.

 

[pemerton]

You don't think DW has stealth issues?

I'll admit then when I played DW we didn't have a stealthy character. I would have thought that, if it's not resolved just via narration/fictional positioning, then by default it is a DEX-based Defy Danger.

I was extrapolating from my experience with Burning Wheel, where Stealth is an opposed check (Stealthy vs Observation, or double Stealth vs untrained Perception), and advantages/disadvantages are assessed by the GM with reference to the fictional positioning. There aren't the action economy, degrees of concealment, etc issues that exist in 5e and create mutiple dimensions within the mechanical framework that aren't easily resolved just via GM adjudication of the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

This is really a stretch.

I have never encountered anyone who plays D&D without the randomness of dice.

I have never encountered anyone who, shy of very unusual circumstances like a TPK, goes back and changes the plot, story, who lives, who dies, etc. of an RPG. Authors of books change things that they have written down all of the time.

Minor changes in plot are very routine eg "I forgot to say that I buy rope, when we were resting in town between sessions - can I mark off the money for it now?"

Not every group would let that pass, but many would.

The poster to whom I was replying, [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION], said that a movie or book is completely pre-determined. My point is that it isn't, it is authored - as you seem to agree - and D&D likewise is authored.

D&D sessions involve some randomness sometimes, but not everything is resolved randomly. For instance, in D&D a wizard does not need to make a check to see if s/he casts his/her spells properly. (This is not the case in all FRPGs.) In AD&D the player of a thief-acrobat doesn't need to make a check to have his/her PC make a jump, whereas in 3E a check is required.

As well as these edition-variations, there are table variations in randomness. At some tables the players have to make checks to have their PCs successfully find the dungeon; at others (especially eg those influenced by Moldvay Basic), the PCs automatically find the dungeon with no encounters, and the session starts with them at the dungeon entrance.

Sacrosanct said that comparing D&D play to movies or books is fundamentally flawed. I disagree. If you want your D&D session to have the sort of drama that characterises a movie or book, it's not all that hard to achieve without railroading - mostly via judicious GM choices between "saying yes" and relying on randomness.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by pemerton

Originally Posted by Ratskinner
I'm beginning to think that this edition is more like Dungeon World than its own last two incarnations. That is, a lot of the rules/rulings confusion and whatnot disappear if you think more fiction-first rather than mechanics-first.

I'm not sure of this. For instance, there are quasi-simulationist DC rules, very finicky elements ...

Dungeon World doesn't have any of these issues.

You don't think DW has stealth issues? From what I've seen/read its the single most unclear and widely interpreted area of play. The rules in general rely very much on interpreting what "put somebody in a spot" means. Trust me, DW has plenty of rules that are vague in interpretation, there are even moves for which its unclear who picks the results! (Although maybe those are third party..I'd have to dig that up.)

In any case, I fully recognize that they are quite distinct games. I'm referring to a de- mechanization that seems to have occurred for 5e. That is, while we still have some conditions, we don't have very rigidly defined rules for a variety of possible states "hidden" being chief among them. The skill descriptions lean much more toward a DW-like "when you do X" interpretation than a more 3e/4e interpretation "if you are under conditions A, B, and C or D you may attempt to place condition Z on yourself. This requires a two-thirds action."

Personally, I feel like WOTC didn't quite have a grasp on how to write rules like thus. The lighting and vision rules are (IMO) the worst offenders here. Plain reading leads to a variety of gameplay interpretations that are nonsensical WRT real life. My best guess: they went for a long time without specifying anything about lighting and vision, and then tripped themselves up trying to codify "use common sense".

Most importantly, though. They did write the rules in a flexible manner so that groups can interpret or override them easily. That makes this far less of a problem than it could be.

I'll admit then when I played DW we didn't have a stealthy character. I would have thought that, if it's not resolved just via narration/fictional positioning, then by default it is a DEX-based Defy Danger.

Just going to heap all of these together and then post thoughts.

Pemerton has the right of it 100 % in how a stealth conflict is framed and mechanically adjudicated in DW (Defy Danger - typically Dex). Further, I think he has the right of it in how 5e and Dungeon World are quite different in (a) their guiding ethos, (b) their base chassis/engine, and (c) the actual play experience that comes forth from the synthesis of a and b (and a few other components). Dungeon World has a very specific formula (which, unlike much of D&D, it doesn't deviate from) and a construct built specifically to support it. It doesn't have task resolution that requires GM adjudication by way of referencing "quasi-process-sim" components, with tight zoom and specificity (such as lighting, LoS, the precise establishment of where some objects are relative to each other in terms of measurable units, etc). Further, it doesn't suffer compounded tension when those then interface with other system components that may be abstracted (possibly with respect to both space and time - both of which do heavy lifting and bear precise unit relevance in their codification within much of D&D's mechanics/build components for an adventuring day/encounter) far outside of that initial zoom and specificity of the first component (s) that also must be referenced/considered. * And then the whole thing must be ruled upon in a way that respects PC build components that may be given short-shrift or may be rendered overpowered if the ruling is one way or another. DW has PC moves, GM moves, some modern gaming tech (such as keywords which assist in getting folks to roughly share the same mentally conjured position of fictional elements), principles which are all exceedingly clear **, and a basic resolution scheme which pushes play towards dynamic, pulp D&D action where the entirety of the table "plays to find out what happens."

I've seen you post that DW has borne out some cognitive dissonance with some cross-section of the gaming populace before. Of this I have no doubt and I suspect it is precisely that cross-section of the gaming populace that expects to reference/deal with the exact mismatched collage of things (and calls it a feature) that pemerton points to above. Presumably for them, its liberating (at least I've heard that voiced)? For some folks (such as myself), it serves to only increase the mental overhead that must be spent on teasing out the signal of designer intended adjudication in a ruleset (like 5e and AD&D), and specifically how the various exchanges between the (not noncomplex) component parts of the engine are meant to fit together (which I find maddening at or away from the table).

---

* 4e can suffer from this when synching a Skill Challenge with the actual combat mechanics or when transitioning directly from one to the other. The GM really has to know what they're doing to make the deviant zoom/level of abstraction work.

** I personally struggle to understand how "put someone in a spot" is difficult to discern what a GM should be doing when they initiate it as a GM move. To "put someone in a spot" (generally) is to "impose upon them such that their ability and/or will to respond is tested and, as such, proved or exposed." In DW, a PCs "ability and/or will to respond" is the portfolio of their class, race, gear, alignment, bonds. Remember, DW is "fiction first" so the GM should be thinking about testing these things when they decide to "put someone in a spot" while simultaneously synthesizing those things with the current fictional positioning. For instance:

Bob the Paladin believes in "endangering himself to protect someone weaker than him" (alignment). Bob has attempted to Aid another PC (lets call him Jack) on a Parlay move to convince the mayor that its in his best interest to relinquish his vested control of the town orphanage (which basically produces indentured servitude but keeps the kids safe and healthy) to the priesthood that is establishing a church on the periphery of the town. Jack blew away the Parlay effort (rolled a 10 + and had solid leverage)! Well, unfortunately for the group, Bob's aid effort was a stunning failure (6-)! I decide to "put Bob in a spot" as my move. I'll test his alignment and see what he is willing to do here (especially in light of the fact that they've just "earned a win" with Jack's Parlay). So out comes the mayor's scribe to pen the transaction and the transfer to the local priesthood. Obviously the scribe is going to be one of the former kids from the orphanage, now on the payroll of the mayor for an extremely meager sum. He is a mousey young man who is constantly trying to avert his gaze from any and all. He flinches abruptly anytime folks move around him...like a dog that has been abused. During the dictation, there are a few occasions where the young boy seeks clarification and is, in turn, brutally admonished by the mayor. Finally, when the mayor really raises his voice right in the kid's face, the boy does one of his customary flinches. Oops! He spilled the inkpot on the document and now we have to start all over again! <SMACK> The mayor backhands the boy...as the assembly of 15 members of the mayor's guard look on stone-faced or smirking.

That...is "putting the PC in a spot." And, of course, the system has a feedback that rewards the player for fulfilling his alignment. And the whole setup rewards all members of the table with exactly the type of play they're (presumably) looking for; non-railroaded, high-octane, dynamic pulp D&D action where everyone is rewarded for engaging each situation with thematic vigor...and the GM isn't burdened with extreme pre-game prep (contriving a major metaplot and how to keep the game "on course"...or the rock/paper/scissors game of keeping a major encounter climactic/interesting) and is his mental overhead is focused exclusively on the fiction and his GMing principles/moves, as he can let the extremely user-friendly, basic resolution scheme do almost all of the heavy lifting of adjudication.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'll respond to this and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] here. I don't really disagree with most of the rest of he said. I'll second his observation that some of DWs mechanics can really add to cognitive overload during play (especially on the DMs side)

You don't think DW has stealth issues?

I'll admit then when I played DW we didn't have a stealthy character. I would have thought that, if it's not resolved just via narration/fictional positioning, then by default it is a DEX-based Defy Danger.

Depending on who you ask, you're either right or wrong. In fact, I presumed much the same thing, except (as has been pointed out to me). Defy Danger with Dex is about moving quickly or acrobatically to avoid harm*. Generally, most applications of stealth in play don't involve that.

There's blogs and articles about why Defy Danger is absolutely wrong for adjudicating stealth and it should all be handled through fictional positioning and GM moves. (A discussion notably absent in the DW rules, IMO.)

Then again Defy Danger with Dex is what everyone presumes is the correct response, dropping or ignoring what is perfectly clear to those writing the articles and blogs.

I'll leave the google searches as an exercise for the reader.

*I don't have the text handy to quote it exactly, but there's a distinct lack of "moving carefully to avoid detection" in the Defy Danger Dex text.

I was extrapolating from my experience with Burning Wheel, where Stealth is an opposed check (Stealthy vs Observation, or double Stealth vs untrained Perception), and advantages/disadvantages are assessed by the GM with reference to the fictional positioning. There aren't the action economy, degrees of concealment, etc issues that exist in 5e and create mutiple dimensions within the mechanical framework that aren't easily resolved just via GM adjudication of the fiction.

I think my comments may have been taken for meaning far more than I intended about the similarity I'm seeing. I think that some of the skill stuff was written in a much looser style. (I.e. interactions with the action economy are largely unspecified) I don't feel that 5e and DW are the same fame in very much else at all, mechanically. I do feel like maybe the wotc team took some baby steps in that direction (intentionally or not) as part of the whole "rulings not rules" mantra.

 

[TarionzCousin]

A bat or dog or Shark whose primary sesne is not sight would be able to se through some purely visual block eg darkness

What about Sharkbat?

 

[Celtavian]

Here's a question. Can blindsight see through walls? So long as the range is far enough I mean.

As long as there is a route around the wall, yep.

It's not X-ray vision though. So complete cut off nope. It will see everything within its range. Doors, pebbles on the ground, trapdoors, secret doors, invisible creatures, chairs, open doorways. Blindsight is the equivalent of Daredevil's radar sense absent further explanation on how you might defeat which might or might not be provided on a creature by creature basis. Oozes might detect using strange sensory organs. Bats using sonar. Dragons might a combination of smell, sensitive touch that detects air movement, hearing, and other sensory organs. The ability does not explain the specifics. From what I can tell it is exactly like Blindsight in 3rd edition/Pathfinder, not like Blindsense. Blindsight picked up everything in its range. Abilities that relied on sight like Stealth and invisibility did not work against it.

Not even sure why this is a discussion myself. Blindsight in 5E is the same as 3E. They chose not to have an intermediate Blindsense for the Smaug versus Bilbo effect. You would have to ask the designers why they made that choice.

 

[pemerton]

I'll respond to this and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] here. I don't really disagree with most of the rest of he said. I'll second his observation that some of DWs mechanics can really add to cognitive overload during play (especially on the DMs side)

I think that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] was saying that D&D adds to cognitive overload (and thereby implying that DW doesn't, or at least not to the same extent).

I think that some of the skill stuff was written in a much looser style. (I.e. interactions with the action economy are largely unspecified) I don't feel that 5e and DW are the same fame in very much else at all, mechanically. I do feel like maybe the wotc team took some baby steps in that direction (intentionally or not) as part of the whole "rulings not rules" mantra.

On this point, to be honest I'm not seeing much difference from the non-combat side of 4e, which is likewise light on action economy (I've always read "everyone takes turns in a skill challenge" as an instruction to the GM for framing fiction that challenges all PCs, not as a metagame stipulation of action economy).

I'll agree that it resembles DW (and BW, etc) but in 4e, as in 5e, you get the finicky stuff around multi-dimensionality, not inadvertantly short-changing or overrewarding certain builds that exploit that multi-dimensionality etc. That said, Stealth has not caused me any practical problems in 4e that I can recall (other than having to remember where my invisible and hidden token is when I take it off the map!).

Depending on who you ask, you're either right or wrong. In fact, I presumed much the same thing, except (as has been pointed out to me). Defy Danger with Dex is about moving quickly or acrobatically to avoid harm*. Generally, most applications of stealth in play don't involve that.

There's blogs and articles about why Defy Danger is absolutely wrong for adjudicating stealth and it should all be handled through fictional positioning and GM moves. (A discussion notably absent in the DW rules, IMO.)

Then again Defy Danger with Dex is what everyone presumes is the correct response, dropping or ignoring what is perfectly clear to those writing the articles and blogs.

To be honest my DW experience is limited - I haven't GMed, and my play was under [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s aeigs as GM so it may not be a surprise that he and I share the Defy Danger intuition.

Personally I don't see why this coudn't be handled on a table-by-table basis. Is it going to break the game to go one way or another (I don't see it)? And it's not as if there's DW organised play that demands uniformity, is there?

Purely for the sake of advancing human knowledge rather than pushing a point, I extracted these quotes from the rulebook:

p 18
A character can’t take the fictional action that triggers a move without that move occurring. For example, if Isaac tells the GM that his character dashes past a crazed axe-wielding orc to the open door, he makes the defy danger move because its trigger is “when you act despite an imminent threat.” Isaac can’t just describe his character running past the orc without making the defy danger move and he can’t make the defy danger move without acting despite an imminent threat or suffering a calamity. The moves and the fiction go hand-in-hand.

p50
The defy danger option for Dexterity looks like something I might be doing to dive out of the way of a spell

p 62
You defy danger when you do something in the face of impending peril. This may seem like a catch-all. It is! Defy danger is for those times when it seems like you clearly should be rolling but no other move applies.

[DEX is invoked] by getting out of the way or acting fast

p 169
The thief disables traps, sneaks, and picks locks.
​

In the thief class, I didn't immediately notice anything very sneaky other than high DEX, which suggests that DEX should somehow feed into sneaking. Otherwise I agree the DEX defy danger test tends to emphasis acrobatics/speed rathter than Stealth.

On the flip side, while I don't know the GM moves very well, it wasn't clear to me what move would be used to frame stealth by way of fictional positioning.

If the "imminent threat" that triggers Defy Danger is the threat of being noticed/caught, then I think a good DW GM should allow for multiple approaches - DEX for stealth, STR to distract the potential spotters by pushing a boulder down from the top of the hill, CHA to nonchalantly/authoritatively stroll past them (analogous to BW's Inconspicuous skil, which I think is something I've missed in other systems eg RM and to a lesser extent 4e), etc.