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

[EzekielRaiden]

I think this points to my issue. What is it D&D does? You seemed to posit that is a long string of "engaging" battles?

I am not fond of that mode of D&D. There are other ways to play D&D I like a lot better.

What does D&D do mechanically?

Yes, it does precisely that, because that's precisely what it is and has always been, mechanically, from its inception.

D&D's engine is a wargame engine, but with a critical component removed: it is a "campaign" where one of the armies (the PCs) must continually fight battles, over and over and over again. That army--henceforth, PC-Army--is thus given specific, defined ways for restocking supplies, because if there weren't such a method, PC-Army would guaranteed lose, and pretty quickly at that.

Everything else in the engine is either not mechanical in the first place ("GM Says"), has only the barest suggestion of mechanics (extremely simple "roll a die, did you exceed X?" binary resolution)...or is magic, where players can just declare that they win because they already have the <spell/item/scroll/etc.> which, in actuality or merely functionally, guarantees they win. 4e tried to introduce actual mechanics outside of combat via Skill Challenges, but botched the presentation (a common flaw with 4e), and anything good it did communicate got lost in the hate parade. Since then, 5e has done absolutely nothing to change this, and has in fact tried to compress as much of itself as it can into the spells system, where essentially all non-fiat, non-combat mechanics are stowed.

Mechanically, D&D is and remains a wargame where the war is never-ending for one army, but it can restock, plus expansive GM fiat and the occasional roughly-50/50 rolled die to determine whether something succeeds or not, unless Spells, which are profoundly scattershot and frequently VERY poorly-designed.

 

[Umbran]

But you're making claims about D&D that are inconsistent using definitions that you have pretty clearly misunderstood. When it gets pointed out to you that you flat out contradict your own definitions, you start moving the goalposts yet again.

Mod note:

Look how many times this post refers to the other speaker, I steady of the topic.

If the basic way to engage with this material is to impugn those who don't agree, that is time to stop.

So, go back to the actual topic, or take a break. If you do not have it in you to take a break, a break can be provided for you.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think 4e took a very different approach and style. To me 4e was D&D in about the same way the 60s Batman TV show was the same as Chritopher Nolan's Batman movies.

Well, Christopher Nolan’s version certainly departed from the core of the character, which was goofy inventions and Bat-puns.

He didn’t even use the Bat-credit card!

 

[AlViking]

Using that technique what would make them a minion?
The idea behind my changes is that the fighter would still wade through if they did enough damage, but that smaller amounts of damage would not suddenly drop the creature.

Since I don't care for the minion concept I think it's unnecessary in 5e. Meanwhile if I want those low level monsters to feel more individually dangerous, they need a bit of a boost. It's not going to work for an ogre, but it would still mean modified CR 1 monsters would only take a single hit most of the time.

Most of the time I just use mob rules or things like a zombie swarm.

 

[Enrahim]

What does D&D do mechanically?

Yes, it does precisely that, because that's precisely what it is and has always been, mechanically, from its inception.

D&D's engine is a wargame engine, but with a critical component removed: it is a "campaign" where one of the armies (the PCs) must continually fight battles, over and over and over again. That army--henceforth, PC-Army--is thus given specific, defined ways for restocking supplies, because if there weren't such a method, PC-Army would guaranteed lose, and pretty quickly at that.

Everything else in the engine is either not mechanical in the first place ("GM Says"), has only the barest suggestion of mechanics (extremely simple "roll a die, did you exceed X?" binary resolution)...or is magic, where players can just declare that they win because they already have the <spell/item/scroll/etc.> which, in actuality or merely functionally, guarantees they win. 4e tried to introduce actual mechanics outside of combat via Skill Challenges, but botched the presentation (a common flaw with 4e), and anything good it did communicate got lost in the hate parade. Since then, 5e has done absolutely nothing to change this, and has in fact tried to compress as much of itself as it can into the spells system, where essentially all non-fiat, non-combat mechanics are stowed.

Mechanically, D&D is and remains a wargame where the war is never-ending for one army, but it can restock, plus expansive GM fiat and the occasional roughly-50/50 rolled die to determine whether something succeeds or not, unless Spells, which are profoundly scattershot and frequently VERY poorly-designed.

Wohay! A new chance of trying to sharpen the arguments I have tried to hone the last 20 years

How much of D&D is the spell lists? I went over OD&D spell list that is on the OD&D spell list and found 23 spells that strike me as quite circumstantial to be possible to use effectively in combat. 4 of them is about restocking supplies. Most of them (12) is about gathering information. 7 seem to mainly be related to getting to places. This do not count things like fly, levitate or Charm which might have obvious in-combat uses alongside it's possibly more intended out of combat uses.

Listen to doors. Xp for treasure. 10 foot pole. None of these really scream "combat" to me.

Ok, I know the counter argument. These are hardly mechanics. And so what? It is content. These days setting has been quoted as similarly if not more important basis to judge a new TTRPG on than it's mechanics.

-----------------------

But OK. Even if we grant that D&D was, still is and always have been a war game. Even then we have other modes than the endless string of "engaging combats". We have the attrition slog, where every combat is a cake walk - until you are so depleted that the last 2 encounters of the day is dangerous if you pushed too far. We also have the combat is a failure state game, where every combat is all about if the players manage to get away before too many of them are slaughtered. We have the chose your battle play where you are supposed to use those sweet information gathering spells and rules to determine which combats are which type. All of these game modes require a solid war combat game in the bottom to work. Neither of them feature a single "engaging" combat (unless you play with fire in the chose your battle play).

For all version of D&D except 4ed I prefer either of these 3 modes over the string of "engaging" combat pattern.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no such thing for Fighters. They just do get better at things because the rules say so. You are now inventing post hoc explanations to justify why the mechanics would be the way they are. Numerous times, you have rejected this kind of reasoning as utterly unacceptable, as incompatible with the very idea of simulation. Now it's fine. Why?


Barbarians do not have a 20 cap. When they reach level 20, their cap is 24 (5.0) or 25 (5.5e.)

And now notice how you are, happily I might add, using the game abstraction to justify the world being different. The abstraction leads, and the world follows. Wasn't that unacceptable just a little while ago?

You'll have to explain yourself better than, "you're a hypocrite" if you want to make any headway with me. Your argument rests on the assumption that classes have no diagetic role in the setting; that they are simply a gamist and/narrative construct. That is a popular opinion, but I don't hold to it.

And I specifically stated that I believe very high-level PCs in 5e transcend "mortal" limits. in the fiction, not as an abstract concept. I wish the game was more transparent about that, but given the rules on the page that's my explanation. You can't legitimately counter my point by referring to a point I specifically addressed.