D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

In 5e that's not what the rules say

"The table’s Armor Class column tells you what your base AC is when you wear a type of armor."

No armor is base AC 10 (explicit in Rules Glossary), Hide is base AC 12 (explicit in armor rules.)

So base = 10 with no armor and base = 12 with hide, and you really think that hide isn't building off of the base 10? It makes more sense to you that the game would go... "Hmm. It's better to subtract 10 from 10 to get to 0, then add 12 for hide, rather than just adding 2 to the base for hide."?

Base AC of 10 for unarmored, +2 for hide = new base of 12. It's pretty clear that this is what they did when deciding the armor base ACs.

 

[Maxperson]

Looking at it now, and it seem like AC = Armor + dex is not presented as a rule at all. Rather it seem like the aproperiate rule is:
AC = (Tabulated formula based on armor/class/monster) + modifiers like shield. Some of the tabulated formulas include dex, others do not (heavy armor). 10 + dex is the "tabulated" value for unarmored. Why 2024 would refere to this 10 as a priveleged "base" i cannot understand though.

Because that's also what happened in 5e, despite it not explicitly saying so. It's very clear than there was the same privileged base of 10 in 5e as there is in 5.5e, but they didn't bother to spell it out on the armor table. Armor adds to what already exists. It makes no sense for it to replace the 10.

 

[CellarHeroes]

Did you have a system in mind? My wife and I would be down for that.

I know that I'm not the one you were asking...
I just recently introduced a group of players to Twilight 2000. They're really into video games like 7 Days to Die, Conan Exiles, and ARK. They say they're having fun, so it seems to have held up over the years.

 

[Enrahim]

Because that's also what happened in 5e, despite it not explicitly saying so. It's very clear than there was the same privileged base of 10 in 5e as there is in 5.5e, but they didn't bother to spell it out on the armor table. Armor adds to what already exists. It makes no sense for it to replace the 10.

Back in the day it was quite some fanfare around this move to distinguish it from mathfinder. Less addition FTW! Not very surprised if they have backpedaled a bit on it on 2024, though the SRD still seem to keep the same formulation in it's armor section at least. The "base AC" is given by the table, and hence might or might not include dex modifier.

But anyway, I consider this more a historical curiosity than any substantial change. It is completely irrelevant for functioning of RAW mechanics, or my own narration. Just got the impression you wanted your own narration house ruling to be as supported as possible by RAW, so I thought I could help with that.

 

[Maxperson]

But you would not hide this, as you've said. You would instead say something like, "Oh, I shouldn't have asked for a roll, that just happens."

Regardless, what you're saying here is that you made a mistake. I don't see how "very rarely, I make a mistake and thus have to do a thing" makes any comment at all on whether the rules are binding. Instead, it seems to me that what this says is "the GM really should follow the rules, and when they flub up and fail to do so, it's on them to fix the problem".

It's harder to encounter a corner case with rolling where the rule would need to be changed/ignored on the fly. While corner cases are rare individually, there are enough rules in 5e that some corner case popping up is not all that uncommon.

When a corner case pops up where a rule should not apply because it doesn't make sense to apply it as written, the DM can and should make a ruling on the spot changing the rule. Now the players know that when/if that corner case ever pops up again, the rule is going to be Y instead of X.

This is why the 5e DMG says things like...

"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

"The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session."

"The rules serve you, not vice versa."

"Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving."

"AS THE DUNGEON MASTER, YOU AREN'T LIMITED by the rules in the Player 's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual."

Most of the time the DM should alter rules in advance and inform the players of changes to the rules that are made, not spring them on the players during game play. However, sometimes that pesky corner case pops up unexpectedly and the DM has to make that ruling right then and there.

The players will know the difference between the DM adding Low Light Vision back into the game and giving that to elves instead of Darkvision, a rule done in advance and told to them. And the DM pointing out during game play that X rule doesn't make sense for Y corner case situation, and so Z ruling will be in place for that corner case now and in the future.

 

[Maxperson]

Back in the day it was quite some fanfare around this move to distinguish it from mathfinder. Less addition FTW! Not very surprised if they have backpedaled a bit on it on 2024, though the SRD still seem to keep the same formulation in it's armor section at least. The "base AC" is given by the table, and hence might or might not include dex modifier.

But anyway, I consider this more a historical curiosity than any substantial change. It is completely irrelevant for functioning of RAW mechanics, or my own narration. Just got the impression you wanted your own narration house ruling to be as supported as possible by RAW, so I thought I could help with that.

Yeah. It seems pretty clear they just removed a math step when they made the armor table with the base ACs for armor. It was still base 10 + 2 for hide = 12. They just saved new players a little time and effort, and said hide = base 12. With shields they couldn't do that since not all classes can use shields, and not all PCs who can use shields will use them. They had to leave it as +2 and let the players add it to AC when used.

I don't need the game to separate them back into 10+2 for hide. 12 = 12, so it's all the same to me. I was just pointing out that the base 10 is really still there, but has just been included into the math for armor in the 5e armor table.

 

[clearstream]

But that's not at all the sort of situation I'm referring to. I'm referring to the thing we were discussing--someone rejecting some W' because it contains some particular F (or, more commonly, a set or type of Fs), and as a result, demanding that we get W" instead, which will take away anything in W' that this person doesn't accept.

I did misstake your meaning (apologies). This seems covered by assuming some unarticulated rules (perhaps more easily understood as tolerances or sensitivities) at the meta-representational layer. Let's call it "preposterousness". The presence of "preposterous" facts in W' act to block or undermine the fictive commitment to W'.

The 'problem' will be the difficulty of reconciling such sensitivities, given what seems to be the safe assumption that they vary per individual.

If you were correct, and W' were always privileged over W, it would be impossible for someone to say "4e isn't D&D" and "4e would have succeeded if it weren't called 'D&D'". Yet people do. Still do. To this day.

It is quite clear to me, from the way people actually do behave, that they either don't actually have a consistent thought process to begin with and are genuinely acting without full rationality (not super surprising IMO), or it is simply not true that W is always, guaranteed, superseded by W'. Take your pick; I don't really care which of those you favor, though I had presumed you'd prefer the latter as it doesn't require jettisoning the W/W'/F model.

That it turns out to contain complexities at the meta-reprentational layer seems unsurprising. Among the evidence cited for the model are a number of cognitive dysfunctions around misattribution (mistaking an imaginary world for the real world and so on.) I'm emphatically not saying that the per individual tolerances or sensitivities are dysfunctional! Only that there is reason to accept that it's complex enough to contain such per individual differences.

Relating to "enforced," it's interesting to consider how it should play out if someone dislikes my entertaining a pretence that a consulting detective named Sherlock Holmes has a sidekick named John Watson. Should I go along with them and remove Holmes and Watson from the fictional world (the W' I am entertaining) then on the one hand I might gain access to a different imaginary world (W'', as you say) that I find equally or more intriguing, and on the other hand I will hardly be able to enjoy the escapades of the intrepid duo. I think the only 'work' here is to be clear with ourselves about what is going on and accept that some posters might be allergic to dragons and falling heroes, whilst others are not.

 

[clearstream]

Back in the day it was quite some fanfare around this move to distinguish it from mathfinder. Less addition FTW! Not very surprised if they have backpedaled a bit on it on 2024, though the SRD still seem to keep the same formulation in it's armor section at least. The "base AC" is given by the table, and hence might or might not include dex modifier.

But anyway, I consider this more a historical curiosity than any substantial change. It is completely irrelevant for functioning of RAW mechanics, or my own narration. Just got the impression you wanted your own narration house ruling to be as supported as possible by RAW, so I thought I could help with that.

@Maxperson proposed it as a house rule, I argued (and shall continue to argue) that it's just a fair reading of the game text.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Did you have a system in mind? My wife and I would be down for that.

Not in particular, and honestly, not right now; I'm really only up to running one campaign at a time these days. Getting old is annoying.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I did misstake your meaning (apologies). This seems covered by assuming some unarticulated rules (perhaps more easily understood as tolerances or sensitivities) at the meta-representational layer. Let's call it "preposterousness". The presence of "preposterous" facts in W' act to block or undermine the fictive commitment to W'.

The 'problem' will be the difficulty of reconciling such sensitivities, given what seems to be the safe assumption that they vary per individual.


That it turns out to contain complexities at the meta-reprentational layer seems unsurprising. Among the evidence cited for the model are a number of cognitive dysfunctions around misattribution (mistaking an imaginary world for the real world and so on.) I'm emphatically not saying that the per individual tolerances or sensitivities are dysfunctional! Only that there is reason to accept that it's complex enough to contain such per individual differences.

Relating to "enforced," it's interesting to consider how it should play out if someone dislikes my entertaining a pretence that a consulting detective named Sherlock Holmes has a sidekick named John Watson. Should I go along with them and remove Holmes and Watson from the fictional world (the W' I am entertaining) then on the one hand I might gain access to a different imaginary world (W'', as you say) that I find equally or more intriguing, and on the other hand I will hardly be able to enjoy the escapades of the intrepid duo. I think the only 'work' here is to be clear with ourselves about what is going on and accept that some posters might be allergic to dragons and falling heroes, whilst others are not.

Well, as you said, the bigger issue is being allergic to falling heroes but not dragons.

Which is precisely the thing I'm focused on.