D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[dave2008]

Except its supposed to be the same spell, and it does a different thing.

Actually the names are different. The on that does force damage is Summon Beast, not Conjure Animals.

'24 Conjure Animals conjures spirit animals just like the '14 version and they do slashing damage, not force damage. The only difference is you don't pick a stat block (which I miss and would still use the '14 version if I had PC that wanted this spell)

 

[dave2008]

never mind

 

[James Gasik]

A monster that does 2d10 damage with a longsword isn't much different than the Gladiator's ability to roll an additional weapon die on all attacks, beyond that it's spelled out as an ability. Going back to my "No Prize" rule, it's easy to surmise the enemy has such an ability, but it wasn't statted up to save space.

And to be fair, other than explaining how, the ability has no other function- it cannot be disrupted, interacted with, or learned by any player character. It just is.

This isn't even anything new- many monsters had double proficiency bonus on certain skill checks, like Perception or Stealth in their stat block, but the game never called out that they had some form of Expertise- the bonus is simply included in the numbers.

Some would argue that this greater emphasis on simplicity causes something to be lost, but I don't see much difference from "the Gladiator has an ability that breaks the rules" and just having it break the rules- there is still a question of how and why it can break the rules in the first place that is left unsaid.

 

[TiQuinn]

Some would argue that this greater emphasis on simplicity causes something to be lost, but I don't see much difference from "the Gladiator has an ability that breaks the rules" and just having it break the rules- there is still a question of how and why it can break the rules in the first place that is left unsaid.

What I think is lost is a sense of the underlying mechanics that decide a CR 1/2 creature should do 12 points of damage avg vs 7 points of damage avg. Arbitrary feels exactly that, arbitrary.

 

[Charlaquin]

The monster stat block vs PC wielding a longsword is better framed as monster vs PC attacking with the weapon. In 2014 5e, you can easily have a PC whose longsword attack doesn't deal 1d8 + Strength mod damage. For example, a battle master fighter will deal more than that with their maneuvers, adding extra dice. A barbarian who rages adds more flat damage. A war cleric can deal 2d8 + Strength mod damage with a longsword.

Sure, but in 2014 a monster with a feature like this that modified the damage it does with a longsword attack would have listed that feature and how exactly it works in the stat block. This was of course ultimately artificial, as the OP pointed out - the monster was always going to do the damage the rules needed it to do. But, the act of writing out features that explained how the monster got from the consistent base damage of its weapon to the damage the rules needed it to do helped to reify the weapon. It was part of the structure maintaining the illusion of the “longsword” game construct as a real object.

Due to this, it makes perfect sense that a hobgoblin or any other kind of creature could deal more damage with a particular weapon, or even alter the weapon's damage die.

This isn’t really a matter of if things make sense. It’s a game of make-believe, everything makes as much sense as the participants are willing to believe it does. But, it is a different approach to how much care the game puts into artificially maintaining a consistency to the behavior of its individual constructs across different contexts. That’s why the term being used here is reification as opposed to “simulation” or “verisimilitude.” Nothing is being simulated and verisimilitude is subjective. But, there is an observable difference in how willing the game is to use different rules to represent the same objects in different contexts.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, since they are only going to be up and swinging for 2 or 3 Rounds, it can be interpreted as the Hobgobin nova-ing some theoretical ability on their part.

It can be interpreted that way, yes. But early 2014 would have explicitly told you it was working that way instead of leaving it up to you to interpret. That’s not a judgement, just an observation.

 

[James Gasik]

What I think is lost is a sense of the underlying mechanics that decide a CR 1/2 creature should do 12 points of damage avg vs 7 points of damage avg. Arbitrary feels exactly that, arbitrary.

Sure but it was arbitrary to begin with, is all I'm saying.

A goblin dealing d6+2 damage with a short sword because they have a Dex of 14 and short swords deal d6 damage is no less arbitrary than just saying "goblins deal d6+2 damage".

After all, the decision to make short swords deal d6 piercing damage, the decision to let someone deal Dex damage with them, and the decision to give the goblin a Dex of 14 were all equally arbitrary.

What's missing is transparency- an answer for "why is this the way that it is" if you care about such things. And there isn't one. Magic missiles deal d4+1 damage because that's what was decided decades ago, back when enemies had a lot less hit points than they do now. Once upon a time, all weapons did d6 damage.

We rarely get any real explanation as to why things change. Why do Wizards have d6 hit dice instead of d4? The people making the game felt like doing it. The same reason why Fireball does 8d6 at 5th level instead of 5d6.

Now we do sometimes get some sense of why things don't change- generally because the fans of the game would be displeased. There is an essential "D&D-ness" to the game which is based on nostalgia. Any time you tip the boat, some will grumble about it. Make magic missiles not always hit or introduce "damage on a miss" into the game for things that aren't explicitly magical, and that might make someone say "it doesn't feel like D&D anymore".

I realize I'm veering off into a whole separate discussion here, but it's really all the same. People want to be able to perceive what's going on and why it is happening. Years ago on these boards, I had an interesting argument with someone about a 4e monster that they put up as their example of why they hated 4e monsters.

The creature was a zombie that dealt damage to you at the start of your turn for being near it. Despite the fact that there were any number of reasons why this was happening, their point of contention was that the game element didn't explain which of these reasons it was.

Does the zombie have an aura of entropy? Does it claw and bite so ferociously that just being near it exposes you to harm? They didn't know, and it didn't make sense to them without an explanation.

However, if I cast a spell and say "a 20-foot-radius sphere of blackness and bitter cold appears, centered on a point within range and lasting for the duration. This void is filled with a cacophony of soft whispers and slurping noises that can be heard up to 30 feet away. No light, magical or otherwise, can illuminate the area, and creatures fully within the area are blinded.

The void creates a warp in the fabric of space, and the area is difficult terrain. Any creature that starts its turn in the area takes 2d6 cold damage. Any creature that ends its turn in the area must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 acid damage as milky, otherworldly tentacles rub against it.", how important is it to also explain that this is the result of I "open a gateway to the dark between the stars, a region infested with unknown horrors"?

Some would say it's extremely important. Others will shrug and say "eh, it's magic, it does weird stuff all the time."

 

[Charlaquin]

A monster that does 2d10 damage with a longsword isn't much different than the Gladiator's ability to roll an additional weapon die on all attacks, beyond that it's spelled out as an ability. Going back to my "No Prize" rule, it's easy to surmise the enemy has such an ability, but it wasn't statted up to save space.

And to be fair, other than explaining how, the ability has no other function- it cannot be disrupted, interacted with, or learned by any player character. It just is.

This isn't even anything new- many monsters had double proficiency bonus on certain skill checks, like Perception or Stealth in their stat block, but the game never called out that they had some form of Expertise- the bonus is simply included in the numbers.

Some would argue that this greater emphasis on simplicity causes something to be lost, but I don't see much difference from "the Gladiator has an ability that breaks the rules" and just having it break the rules- there is still a question of how and why it can break the rules in the first place that is left unsaid.

Nothing about either the gladiator or the hobgoblin breaks the rules. Dealing 2d10 damage with an attack is something the rules allow. But there is a difference in presentation between using a weapon that deals 1d10 damage while having a feature that doubles your damage dice, and having an attack that does 2d10 damage. That difference in presentation is what’s being observed here. There are many things that the 2014 rules were very consistent in its presentation of, in order to help hold up the illusion of them being actual objects with permanence, and the 2024 rules treat with less consistency. That’s not “unrealistic” or whatever, one can always come up with an explanation for why it works the way it does. But it is a noticeable shift in approach.

 

[Clint_L]

Which is also not an official. I don't feel like doing the extra typing, or for that matter pretending like D&D wasn't revised. But you know, I figure people can call it what they want. It'll settle out in the end. 5E, as you will recall, wasn't even 5e at one point.

How to derail your own thread.

I’d rather talk about realism vs gameism, though. I think 5e strikes a pretty good balance. Given the nature of fantasy settings, it’s always a tough balance to strike. It’s best not to peer under the hood too closely, and I like that 5e focused on offering just enough rules for a complex game, but mostly tries to stay out of the weeds of emulating reality in a serious way. I think the latter is basically incompatible with the genre.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure but it was arbitrary to begin with, is all I'm saying.

A goblin dealing d6+2 damage with a short sword because they have a Dex of 14 and short swords deal d6 damage is no less arbitrary than just saying "goblins deal d6+2 damage".

After all, the decision to make short swords deal d6 piercing damage, the decision to let someone deal Dex damage with them, and the decision to give the goblin a Dex of 14 were all equally arbitrary.

What's missing is transparency- an answer for "why is this the way that it is" if you care about such things. And there isn't one. Magic missiles deal d4+1 damage because that's what was decided decades ago, back when enemies had a lot less hit points than they do now. Once upon a time, all weapons did d6 damage.

I would actually argue that what we’re seeing is more transparency. The explanation that a goblin deals 1d6+2 damage because longswords have a 1d6 weapon die and Finesse and goblins have 14 Dexterity is not really the reason. The real reason is that 5.5 average damage per attack is the amount of pressure that the designers felt was appropriate for the challenge they wanted a goblin to present. The other explanation is a clever use of illusionism to trick our primate brains into thinking of an imaginary goblin as a real creature wielding a real weapon. It’s an artificial structure used to reify the game mechanics. And the 2024 rules revision is putting less effort into maintaining that artificial structure than early 2014 did. This goes hand in hand with the observation that the 2024 monster design has more in common with 4e monster design. 4e was also very transparent with its mechanics, acknowledging directly that they are game mechanics rather than using a lot of artifice to reify them.

There are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches, but it’s interesting to see the degree of reification shift within an edition. We saw a similar shift in the opposite direction with 4e Essentials.