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

I'm sorry but that's intellectually dishonest. The Assassin does not have an action, a bonus action, or a trait that allows it to apply poison to both its weapon attacks. By default applying poison would either be a bonus action or an action, just from baseline rules when interacting with poisons and other similar items. Thus, you would also have to create a custom trait for the 2014 Assassin, which would allow it to apply poison to both attacks, above and beyond what a creature could normally do. That is absolutely no different than giving the hobgoblin a trait that increases the weapon's damage die or dice when the hobgoblin wields that weapon.
I'm agreeing with you, and wondering: is this just arguing for the sake of arguing? I find it hard to imagine that anyone actually cares that a hobgoblin or guard captain gets an extra damage dice to reflect their harder challenge rating. Is this ever going to come up in game, or wreck immersion for someone, or something?

If you're playing D&D, you're already cool with reducing all the complexities of surviving a combat down to something called "hit points," so it's hard to believe that an extra damage dice for an extra tough hobgoblin will be a bridge too far.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm agreeing with you, and wondering: is this just arguing for the sake of arguing? I find it hard to imagine that anyone actually cares that a hobgoblin or guard captain gets an extra damage dice to reflect their harder challenge rating. Is this ever going to come up in game, or wreck immersion for someone, or something?

If you're playing D&D, you're already cool with reducing all the complexities of surviving a combat down to something called "hit points," so it's hard to believe that an extra damage dice for a hobgoblin will be a bridge too far.
I suggest you read the whole thread. The short answer is it's absolutely ruining people's game per their own testimony.
 

I suggest you read the whole thread. The short answer is it's absolutely ruining people's game per their own testimony.
I have read the thread. I'm skeptical that this is actually happening in games. I find this very hard to believe. I think it's Internet hyperbole, where everything is the end of the world.

Edit: I think the OP has raised interesting ideas about realism vs. abstraction, and do we really need to make it about hobgoblin damage dice? If so, fair enough, and I will tap out.
 


And like the aarakroca javelin, there is no rule for the 7d6 poison in the PHB or DMG. It can't be bought, created, and the rules for use are murky. Nor is it listed as an inventory item. So you have magical quantum poison that only that NPC can use, never runs out and doesn't exist outside the statblock of the NPC.

But sure, 2014 was great for versimillitude.
I never made that claim. I do believe it is better than 5.5 on that metric, or rather that 5.5 is worse. Leaping into hyperbole and putting words in the mouths of others isn't great for discourse.

I don't have the assassin in front of me, and I don't think I've ever even used the statblock. If I did, I'd make adjustments so it made more setting sense to me, and the adjustments I'd make would be based on setting logic, not how much damage a particular monster of a particular CR is "supposed" to do. At least it makes sense that assassins use poison. It makes less sense for hobgoblins to somehow use longswords far more effectively than other warriors.
 

I never made that claim. I do believe it is better than 5.5 on that metric, or rather that 5.5 is worse. Leaping into hyperbole and putting words in the mouths of others isn't great for discourse.

I don't have the assassin in front of me, and I don't think I've ever even used the statblock. If I did, I'd make adjustments so it made more setting sense to me, and the adjustments I'd make would be based on setting logic, not how much damage a particular monster of a particular CR is "supposed" to do. At least it makes sense that assassins use poison. It makes less sense for hobgoblins to somehow use longswords far more effectively than other warriors.
Why would it make less sense? Even the 2014 MM describes hobgoblins as incredibly martially oriented people who value martial prowess basically above anything else. Doesn't it make sense that they can use weapons particularly well since it's all they care about? In fact, wouldn't it make less sense if they were just average warriors, considering their culture and lifestyle revolves around martial prowess?
 

Why would it make less sense? Even the 2014 MM describes hobgoblins as incredibly martially oriented people who value martial prowess basically above anything else. Doesn't it make sense that they can use weapons particularly well since it's all they care about? In fact, wouldn't it make less sense if they were just average warriors, considering their culture and lifestyle revolves around martial prowess?
Are they somehow better than all other warriors with the longsword? I don't recall reading that.
 

First of all, let me acknowledge that I'm using ludification wrong, because it means to mock, tease, or make fun of. However, it comes from ludus (game, sport) and so literally means to make a game of. I just want to make an observation about some of the changes from 5e to the revised edition, some of them fairly subtle, others more obvious. In 5e, a lot of things were reified, that is, literally, thingified. It's about treating the representation of something as the thing itself, often in a reductive way. So, for example, in the BECMI (especially Expert and Companion rules) it notes that rulers often let their vassals go on adventures, so they will become more powerful and acquire more treasure; this is treating the rules (gaining XP from monsters and gold, going up in levels making you generally more capable) as if they were in the in-universe reality. To an extent, characters in the game world can actually see what classes people are, have an awareness of level drain, etc.

Now, 5e moved away from that to some extent, so that NPCs can be constructed that don't quite correspond to PC classes (eg. the Acolyte, who is a bit like a cleric, but doesn't have a lot of special abilities and has a smite-like power to boost its melee power). So some things are the way they are because of relentless symmetry in the rules, or the desire for a thing to represent a thing. So, if a hobgoblin uses a longsword one-handed, it does a base 1d8 damage, even if the specific die is ultimately not very important because the damage will be modified by any means necessary to get to around the "right" damage for its Challenge.

By contrast, 6E has moved swiftly into ludification. A lot of things were done to simplify, streamline, and improve the experience as a game. So, one change I noticed is the spell Conjure Animals. Previously, this spell, well, conjured some animals, of a limited Challenge rating. Now, it summons spectral animals, who occupy a Large space and do Force damage. It occupies a sort of mid-point between Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. But you can't cast the new spell to summon a constrictor snake to constrict someone, or a venomous snake to poison someone, and so forth. You can't even properly summon a seal, only a spectral creature that occupies either the sea or the land. Arguably, this is an improvement for play, since the spell is more consistent, balanced, and future-proofed against bad animal writeups in future books. But I feel like it kind of loses something.

I personally prefer things more on the reification side, where things are things, rather than the ludification side, where things are game objects. However, I'm not very extreme in that and I vastly prefer some simplifications. What do y'all think about the changes?

I don't think having NPCs not follow the rules of PCs moves away from levelling being an in world thing that people are aware of.

For me, I think NPCs follow the same in game fiction as PCs it is just that for the players, they only have limited options.

In other words, there are limitless options for the people in the world to choose from for classes and abilities but the PCs are constrained due to the need to actually write out the rules.

In the fiction there isn't a difference. Only having 12 classes in the entire world with the same abilities would be quite stifling and odd for me.
 

I suspect that there are DM facing players that loot everything till the bone marrow of any monsters they defeat.
Assassin and Hobgoblin does poison damage, I want it toooooooooo!
 


Remove ads

Top