D&D 5E (2024) This Feels Like 4E

[Chaltab]

I can understand that but he's not doing that in a vacuum, that's the horrendous problem in using him as an example base rules or what is a reasonable target for the average gm with an average table. The average player is not a skilled actor with a strong financial incentive to make it work while giving back relevant improv that the gm can work off with the expectation of eager collaboration.

You brought up Mercer as a GM who "does a good job of making combats in 5E feel very tactical and using terrain", but he's a useless comparison because almost zero GMs can expect to hta table of skilled professional voice actors like him.

You mentioned players doing a bunch of things in various situations and biting a bunch of hooks, that's better than most references to him that don't even mention the players and just hold him up as some kind of default gold standard.... But you didn't mention the relevant professional training his players have, their financial incentive, or the hooks they gave him back in the moment and between sessions.

I'm aware of all that but you've yet to make it clear why his players' background in voice over matters to tactical combat. I brought up Mercer because he and Critical Role are the most common reference point for Actual Plays but there are plenty of other examples where the tables aren't full of emmy-winning VO artists.

 

[Horwath]

I love martials. Prefer them to casters much of the time. So I’m certainly not sad to see them get interesting things. It’s one of the reasons I was glad to see Masteries.

But what you are suggesting is having fighter stop and choose a different mastery on every single weapon swing. That would cause so much slow down, it would be horrifying. Sure, casters may have more options in their tool belt, but even they only have to make one choice a round.

it would be still less than a caster.
sure it might be few per turn, but on most turns situation will be one or two masteries that could be useful.

Casters could have a choice of 15+spells to pick from later on.

maybe one solution for simpler fighter(if that is even possible) is to trade 2 masteries for a fighting style permanently.
to have a choice of picking active vs. passive features in building.

 

[Horwath]

If only weapon juggling was interesting rather than repetitive and time consuming.

depending how you imagine it.

Say you fighting several enemies as a group.
one is next to you and 2 are at your wizards face.

with 1st attack you might use warhammer to Push that opponent from you, so you avoid AoO then switch to great ax to cleave at the two at your wizards side.
then if one is still alive, you might want to action surge and maybe use Topple or Sap on one that is still standing to weaken their next turn and better protect your party members.

again, being weapon agnostic, clears some of this problem.

 

[Horwath]

If you strongly discourage combat via high lethality and low rewards, players will stick to the much more intresting exploration and role-playing D&D was meant for!

roles in PHB are 95% for combat and D&D is primary intended for only roleplay?

now, dont get me wrong, I love good RP as much as the next guy, but saying that combat is not meant for D&D, that was essentially made as a wargame is a bit strange.

 

[MichaelSomething]

roles in PHB are 95% for combat and D&D is primary intended for only roleplay?

now, dont get me wrong, I love good RP as much as the next guy, but saying that combat is not meant for D&D, that was essentially made as a wargame is a bit strange.

You can probably trace that back to Dave Arneson and similar players using lateral thinking to defeat scenarios by not engaging with them in combat as intended by referees. Negative-space gaming invites people tasked with making consistent rulings to document the unknown, making it known and consistent.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm aware of all that but you've yet to make it clear why his players' background in voice over matters to tactical combat. I brought up Mercer because he and .

Well I did that all the way back in post 29. You just didn't think it to be relevant & your reply was more in a different direction so I pointed out the omission 116.

His "Players" are Professional Voice Actors engaged in putting on a massively profitable made for profit presentation intended for passive viewer consumption.

Are you suggesting that is the bar players should be expected to meet after choosing not to ring out during a pre-session zero casting call/contract negotiation?

Their that gives them financial incentiveto not look at the rules through a lens of "what do the rules allow" while their background gives them the training and experience to look at them through a lens like "what can I do that will be useful and how can I make it enjoyable to watch".... Given that taking turns as described in 101 would not be enjoyable to watch ... Well that's where the professional training and financial incentive comes in.

Calling 5.24 weapon juggling implementation "tactical combat" is an extreme stretch though, I'm not even sure how the term might apply to making gratuitous use of poorly written at will abilities lacking any action economy hit through the use of multiple weapons that themselves do not meaningfully bite into carrying capacity in any way that could even inconvenience.

I brought up Mercer because he and Critical Role are the most common reference point for Actual Plays but there are plenty of other examples where the tables aren't full of emmy-winning VO artists.

Live plays are typically a terrible example because they are usually edited and/or subject to the fact that everyone at the table agrees they are putting on a live play for viewing consumption.

You didn't answer the question about if you are suggesting CR as a bar players should also be expected to meet though. Should we assume that players should be given a default "don't expect anything from me" pass simply because they showed up?

 

[tetrasodium]

depending how you imagine it.

Say you fighting several enemies as a group.
one is next to you and 2 are at your wizards face.

with 1st attack you might use warhammer to Push that opponent from you, so you avoid AoO then switch to great ax to cleave at the two at your wizards side.
then if one is still alive, you might want to action surge and maybe use Topple or Sap on one that is still standing to weaken their next turn and better protect your party members.

again, being weapon agnostic, clears some of this problem.

The trouble with weapon juggling is not one of imagination. It doesn't matter to the player behind your wizard how Moe Larry and curly imagine their weapon juggling, it's a mind numbing delay that is largely just gratuitous excess rather than something making a big improvement in the fight's odds. More importantly is that it's stomping on the toes of your wizard's niche to poorly engage in control via & debuff or it's a more blastery wizard and a time suck being performed by what are typically the highest damaging PCs across the session

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"what do the rules allow"

One of the things the "rules allow" is changing any rule that doesn't suit how you play. @Horwath is quite right to change the rules to suit what they want out of them.

Well that's where the professional training and financial incentive comes in.

You don't need professional training or financial incentives to identify when something is or is not enjoyable to play, and play accordingly. Nor do you need professional training or financial incentives to be considerate of the other people playing with you.

The trouble with weapon juggling is not one of imagination.

A failure of imagination is exactly what it is. The player is not thinking "what does my fantasy hero alter ego do?" they are thinking "how can I maximise the performance of this playing piece?*"


*And even that is based on something they read on the internet, rather than something they came up with themselves.