D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Mort]

I don't believe that it's a matter of jumping to step3 too early because we have had a system that did what you are proposing but it did so by declaring things before doing them where they were open to butbutbut hurdles before the roll to settle them rather than rolling the dice and then declaring them in some sort of schrodinger's cat style successful and blocked. I quoted the mechanics for that earlier in 1022. I don't know if you were around back in 2e & earlier when that was the norm but it was not uncommon for some groups to simply roll steps1 & 2 into their appropriate positions in the initiative for each monster & PC just because it could be a hassle to track. What you are suggesting is for the GM to run the game in a perpetual state of quantum ogre that never actually settles upon a door as a solution.

I player and DMed 2e for a long time.

And I just simply don't agree with your characterization as running in a form of quantum anything.

If that's true, than saves are the same really. The DM waits for the saving throw before dictating the result. If he didn't, you'd get a lot of weird retcons!

The DM waits (or inquires) to see if there is a reaction before dictating the result.

You get no - but, but, but anything. once step 2 is actually concluded, the time for reactions is over.

How does it go at your table?

Have you simply banned reactions?

Do you just hurdle forward with narration after declaring a hit, not bothering to see if the result can be changed by a player? And not allowing if they try?

I'm curious, because while I HAVE seen DMs get a bit flustered by reactions, these were new DMs who quickly understood what they needed to do to compensate - and then it wasn't a problem.

 

[Mort]

Sorry, the bolded bit doesn't quite parse.

That's because, as written it makes no sense, darn phone. Sorry about that

Meant to type: it's that or a redesign.

Other than that, my point is that interrupts should have to be declared before it's clear whether there will in fact be anything for them to successfully interrupt - i.e. at the end of step 1 before any mechanical resolution processes begin.

Otherwise IMO it gives too much power to the interrupter.

Some do require you do it early. The Diviner's Portent for example.

But some are expressly meant to give the power to the interrupter such as the shield spell. Yes, that clearly rubs some the wrong way.

 

[tetrasodium]

But since interrupts exist, you have to add step 2.5: give the target an opportunity to use one BEFORE moving to step 3. It's that it ax redesign. Since I find the current system works smoothly, I'm not interested in doing that.

If the GM needs to "add step 2 point five" in a sequence of step1/step2/step3 to accommodate for common low cost abilities that sounds like tacit admission of those abilities breaking the game's flow in ways the GM is forced to compensate for.

I player and DMed 2e for a long time.

It wasn't a slight, just an acknowledgement that many started with more recent editions.

And I just simply don't agree with your characterization as running in a form of quantum anything.

If that's true, than saves are the same really. The DM waits for the saving throw before dictating the result. If he didn't, you'd get a lot of weird retcons!

The DM waits (or inquires) to see if there is a reaction before dictating the result.

You get no - but, but, but anything. once step 2 is actually concluded, the time for reactions is over.

How does it go at your table?

Have you simply banned reactions?

Do you just hurdle forward with narration after declaring a hit, not bothering to see if the result can be changed by a player? And not allowing if they try?

I'm curious, because while I HAVE seen DMs get a bit flustered by reactions, these were new DMs who quickly understood what they needed to do to compensate - and then it wasn't a problem.

A reaction like shield or uncanny dodge simply does not work like a save spell. The caster says they need a $type save from the target & the target returns one before the results are given. It's not a case where the caster calls for a save the results are given and the target says no.

As to my table, I've had players who were particularly disruptive with reactions. If I withhold complete information needed for them to be 100% certain of the outcome before declaring if they pop their reaction ability they get salty & I get clubbed by the social contract for looking adversarial. If I give them perfect information it slows things to a crawl as every reaction-able interaction is boggled down to a crawl where everyone at the table needs to wait a few seconds for them to weigh their odds or whatever while the GM needs to switch mental gears from narrating or describing to juggling schrodinger's narration. In the end the way it works out is I look less adversarial & have to deal with fewer frustrated players by just accepting that bob made his PC immune to whatever conditions are required to trigger his reaction, he simply won't be targeted or whatever because I have 5 players and can almost always target someone who is not playing a disruptive meme.

 

[Irlo]

This reminds me of a DM who would frequently narrate bone-crushing, gorey critical hits ... before rolling near to minium damage. He might have eventually learned to wait for everything to resolve before narrating the outcome.

 

[Mort]

If the GM needs to "add step 2 point five" in a sequence of step1/step2/step3 to accommodate for common low cost abilities that sounds like tacit admission of those abilities breaking the game's flow in ways the GM is forced to compensate for.

The presented 1-3 is for the exploration pillar, in the exploration section. Combat is simply more involved. It would have been MUCH better if the rules presented a proper combat play loop for DMs to understand the flow. The fact that they don't is one of the problems with the presentation of the rules. Hopefully fixed in the next iteration but I have my doubts.

It wasn't a slight, just an acknowledgement that many started with more recent editions.

I will say 5e, despite it's flaws, is a bastion of clarity compared to any edition but 4e (and maybe 3e, but 3e has its issues and if you don't like how PC empowering 5e is then woo boy).

A reaction like shield or uncanny dodge simply does not work like a save spell. The caster says they need a $type save from the target & the target returns one before the results are given. It's not a case where the caster calls for a save the results are given and the target says no.

This is the Crux of the disagreement.

The results are NOT given, the potential results are given (and only partially, you don't narrate the results of a hit, you say there might be a hit) subject to possible change if the target has something that can change the potential results.

The results are fixed when all actions, reactions, etc. are accounted for then move on. But I'm repeating myself.

Point is yes, if you don't move to step 3 too early, then no issue.

As to my table, I've had players who were particularly disruptive with reactions. If I withhold complete information needed for them to be 100% certain of the outcome before declaring if they pop their reaction ability they get salty & I get clubbed by the social contract for looking adversarial.

Interesting, I haven't seen a player get too salty over the DM enforcing rules (I mean RAW Shield could easily still result in a hit, them's the breaks), then again I play (mostly DM) with friends. But even at Gen Con and a few other Cons players took the DMs rulings and moved on.

If I give them perfect information it slows things to a crawl as every reaction-able interaction is boggled down to a crawl where everyone at the table needs to wait a few seconds for them to weigh their odds or whatever while the GM needs to switch mental gears from narrating or describing to juggling schrodinger's narration.

Again I can see how that would be irritatiting, but I don't play with those kinds of people and they wouldn't last at my table. But also, I simply DON'T move on to description until the actions before it are resolved. That way DOES lie madness.

In the end the way it works out is I look less adversarial & have to deal with fewer frustrated players by just accepting that bob made his PC immune to whatever conditions are required to trigger his reaction, he simply won't be targeted or whatever because I have 5 players and can almost always target someone who is not playing a disruptive meme.

Again, this just seems foreign to me. It's not like it's difficult to challenge players who use shield a lot! They tend to realize quickly that perhaps they should have saved the spell slot for later. Counterspell is even worse on that front, it starts eating up high level slots FAST. and I do so enjoy the look on a player's face when they realize they've Counterspelled a cantrip (you don't have time to identify a spell AND counterspell it, that rule from Xanathars I like).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Also as an instantaneous reaction a player casting counterspell likewise is incapable of triggering at any point other than while the GMis describing a creature casting it

So what? The steps of play aren’t presented as strictly enforced so that there’s never any overlap.

And even if they were, I’d say that the GM taking a turn for an NPC is more an example of step 2 than 3. He’s taking that NPCs turn, declaring what that NPC wants to do. Reactions occur on other characters turns, so they still occur on step 2. Once all actions and any triggered actions are done, the GM moves to step 3 and narrates the outcome.

I'd prefer not to hold rigorously to the idea that actions are longer than bonus actions and reactions occur in the blink of an eye.

Considering how many bonus actions consist of things that are normally regular actions… attacks of opportunity being the most obvious… I think it’s clear that how long they take is not so formalized as suggested.

Bards and Rogues don't have the same requirement of written instructions on how to do what they do (though a Bard, I suppose, might have sheet music if such has been invented in the setting).

Do you think perhaps that your preferences are playing a part in how strict you consider the written magic of wizards?

It seems a pretty basic default to say that, in cases like this where it matters who goes first and there's no initiative ticker acting as a timekeeper, characters act in the fiction in the same order as those actions are declared by the players at the table.

Otherwise you get this:

player A - I do X
player B - no, I do Y first!
Player C - no, I do Z firster first!

Does anyone really want that?

In certain instances, sure. Why not? Like, we as players are playing a game, so we need such structures. But the fiction need not be so beholden to them.

Again, though, if one maps player declaration order to character action order it should be FIFO resolution. Making it LIFO gives far too much advantage to the player who declares last...never mind the time-twisting where the last-to-declare player ends up with the first-to-act character.

That's not so easy if one wants to narrate things step-by-step as they happen so as to a) provide information to the players and b) keep it all straight.

There’s nothing complicated about it. NPC A casts a spell. PC B counters it. NPC C counters B’s counter. This all happens on NPC A’s turn. Once we know it all, the GM narrates what happens.

I don’t see what’s difficult about that.

 

[iserith]

Again, this just seems foreign to me. It's not like it's difficult to challenge players who use shield a lot! They tend to realize quickly that perhaps they should have saved the spell slot for later.

Do what my DM does - ignore my shield-casting character and kill all the other PCs instead.

(To be fair, I also do this.)

 

[Mort]

Do what my DM does - ignore my shield-casting character and kill all the other PCs instead.

(To be fair, I also do this.)

Well it does depend a bit what the goal is.

Remember, you don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster then the other guy running away.

 

[Lanefan]

There’s nothing complicated about it. NPC A casts a spell. PC B counters it.

Fine.

NPC C counters B’s counter.

Not fine. Why does the character who reacts last - both in the fiction* and at the table - get to resolve first?

* - which must be true as you can't react to something that has yet to happen, you can only pro-act; reaction by definition cannot occur until there's something to react to.

I don’t see what’s difficult about that.

Timing.

 

[tetrasodium]

So what? The steps of play aren’t presented as strictly enforced so that there’s never any overlap.

And even if they were, I’d say that the GM taking a turn for an NPC is more an example of step 2 than 3. He’s taking that NPCs turn, declaring what that NPC wants to do. Reactions occur on other characters turns, so they still occur on step 2. Once all actions and any triggered actions are done, the GM moves to step 3 and narrates the outcome.



Considering how many bonus actions consist of things that are normally regular actions… attacks of opportunity being the most obvious… I think it’s clear that how long they take is not so formalized as suggested.



Do you think perhaps that your preferences are playing a part in how strict you consider the written magic of wizards?



In certain instances, sure. Why not? Like, we as players are playing a game, so we need such structures. But the fiction need not be so beholden to them.



There’s nothing complicated about it. NPC A casts a spell. PC B counters it. NPC C counters B’s counter. This all happens on NPC A’s turn. Once we know it all, the GM narrates what happens.

I don’t see what’s difficult about that.

The answer to that bolded bit is the same reason why you can't learn to safely text & drive a thousand plus pound vehicle moving at potentially deadly speeds. Humans are bad at multitasking. We need to go through full context switching rather than a lower overhead multithreaded conscious thought. It's not a thing our brains evolved to be capable of doing. Taking that to the question of why forcing the GM to engage in context switching is problematic you just need to factor in that most GMs are human. but 5e is designed in a way that simply shrugs it off.

 

[Bill Zebub]

* - which must be true as you can't react to something that has yet to happen,

Have you ever known what a family member or good friend was about to say, and you cut them off before they could say it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

NVM

 

[Voadam]

Other than that, my point is that interrupts should have to be declared before it's clear whether there will in fact be anything for them to successfully interrupt - i.e. at the end of step 1 before any mechanical resolution processes begin.

Otherwise IMO it gives too much power to the interrupter.

This is very much a tastes vary thing.

I find the "guess whether to use the resource ahead of time" model as not nearly as fun and leads to a lot of spending time at the table interrupting the flow to resolve stuff that ends up with the same result as if the resource had not been used at all. For me this feels frustrating and a waste of time that could be spent instead on player and monster actions that result in some actual effect or on just doing things quicker without the mechanic.

Ideally for me interrupts at the table should be quickly implemented effects at the table. "21 hits your 20 AC." "Shield! Blocked!" is quick and feels like the player actively using resources defending.

If they are a huge guessing game about whether they will come into effect or not you are just putting an incentive to instead use longer lasting defenses such as mage armor, or utility, or attack spells.

I do not feel interrupts as interrupts give too much power to the interrupter, I think that is a fine power model in D&D.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not fine. Why does the character who reacts last - both in the fiction* and at the table - get to resolve first?

* - which must be true as you can't react to something that has yet to happen, you can only pro-act; reaction by definition cannot occur until there's something to react to.

Because that's how reacting works. Both in and out of fiction.

Reactions is both noticing and anticipating. A guy is at a baseball game and the batter tips a foul ball into the crowd. The guy sees the ball coming and ducks. The guy beside him sees him starting to duck and lifts his beer to safety from the first guy's head coming down.

 

[iserith]

"I think counterspell and shield just makes the game more boring for everyone since it's negates someone doing something." Okay, fair enough. I can see that, even if I don't ban the spells myself.

"I think counterspell and shield are imbalanced and favor the PCs too much." I disagree, but fine.

Any other argument though - "realism," play process, timing, "gamism bad," or whatever - looks to me like post-hoc justification one or both of the above preferences. I don't buy any of it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

After years of D&D forums, I have absolutely no doubts that people just straight up think gamism is bad. For this game.

 

[iserith]

After years of D&D forums, I have absolutely no doubts that people just straight up think gamism is bad. For this game.

I view any objections as to that sort of thing as a statement of belonging to a particular tribe. Perhaps when those terms were coined they had some kind of discernible meaning, but now they strike me as just another form of tribalism among many in today's world.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I view any objections as to that sort of thing as a statement of belonging to a particular tribe. Perhaps when those terms were coined they had some kind of discernible meaning, but now they strike me as just another form of tribalism among many in today's world.

Eh, they have their uses in terms of design direction, but like most things, teaching D&D nerds words (verisimilitude, badwrongfun) leads to disaster.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fine.

Not fine. Why does the character who reacts last - both in the fiction* and at the table - get to resolve first?

* - which must be true as you can't react to something that has yet to happen, you can only pro-act; reaction by definition cannot occur until there's something to react to.

Timing.

Again, you're ignoring the part where I am saying that the order of events does not have to be the same for the characters as the players. Your view is far too strict regarding the turn structure and the designation of the action as a "reaction".

Part of reaction often is being ready for something. Anticipating or expecting it and then responding once it happens. This is what I've been saying.

If you simply don't enforce the turn structure onto the characters in the fiction, then it all can flow perfectly fine in the fiction, and perfectly fine at the table.

It's this perceived need to have them match that causes the issue. That desire to have them match is not a need, but rather a preference.

The answer to that bolded bit is the same reason why you can't learn to safely text & drive a thousand plus pound vehicle moving at potentially deadly speeds. Humans are bad at multitasking. We need to go through full context switching rather than a lower overhead multithreaded conscious thought. It's not a thing our brains evolved to be capable of doing. Taking that to the question of why forcing the GM to engage in context switching is problematic you just need to factor in that most GMs are human. but 5e is designed in a way that simply shrugs it off.

I'm unsure if you're talking about the characters here or the GM.

If you're talking about the characters and their ability to track multiple factors in a hectic environment such as combat, I would agree that it is incredibly difficult. But it's also something humans have always done and continue to do.

If instead you're tlking about the GM, I don't think it's too much to ask a GM to allow reactions. I handle them fine when I GM, and every other GM I've seen handles them fine. If a particular GM actually struggled with them for some cognitive reason, then sure, he should limit or ban them. But I don't think that the rules need to be changed to meet that specific GM's needs.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm of the opinion
1. That it's not practical in the middle of combat to narrate a declaration of casting a spell to see if anyone counters it. When I DM I immediately declare the spell being cast or the description of the spell effects as do the players. Take the movie Willow for example where the evil Queen counterspells his pebble of petrifiction once she finds out the magic which has been unleashed.
2. DMs/Players may change spells being countered if they're not openly declared. Open cards removes this ambiguity and levels the playing field.
3. Xanathars rule for identification is rubbish and works against Counterspell.
4. Thematically it works better to know the arrow was going to hit you and you cast a Shield spell than to possibly cast Shield for nothing. We are trying to recreate awesome moments not create meh fantasy.