D&D 5E Turning a boring trap into an exciting encounter.

[Imaculata]

3) People keep referring to traps in real life having no clues so it's not realistic. Most give the example of a mine field. While this is true, most traps in D&D are in inhabited dungeons. This means that the people who walk in and out of the dungeon every day, have to walk over the trap. Then the DM throws in a trip wire trap at the entrance. It makes no sense. How would the people get in and out without accidentally killing themselves every day. If there are people who use the traps location, then there are clues for the trap. A keyhole in the wall that turns it off, a path of footprints where they carefully walk around it, a place where the trap has already been triggered by a careless adventurer.

Further more, if it were really realistic, then a dungeon would be a deadly minefield. What we are going for on the other hand is not realism, but a good and fun story. So there should be a way to find the traps. The players are Indiana Jones, and they are the ones spotting the odd patches of moss on the tiles of the floor.

D&D should feel like being the hero in an adventure movie/story, in my opinion. So yes, there are clues to the traps.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You're right. That's not equivalent. But I still disagree: It's not the same. It's more. It's an expectation of more detail, specifically - and only - in this one type of interaction with the game world. Why? Why reward one and not the other?

Indeed why not? In the abstract combat system of D&D many things are assumed. We don't believe that a man-sized opponent completely fills a 5' square. Moving around in that space is an unstated assumption. To stand completely still means someone needs to declare it. Likewise a first level character that only gets one attack per round is trying to land more blows than that. The abstracted rules only grant a single chance for a significant hit because its a game.

Even so there are things that can be done and chosen by the player to grant advantage. Occupying higher ground, attacking from hiding, retreating to defend narrow portals, etc. All of these are player driven and influence the outcome of a combat. The more time a force has for preparation the more chances they have to stack on the circumstances needed for victory.

If a small group of starting PCs were hunting a very strong and dangerous cave bear that could bite any one of their heads off in a single bite I would expect them to formulate a plan that allowed them to kill it without exposing themselves to attacks. There is no " kill the darn bear by being smart" skill on the character sheet, so the players are going to have to come up with a plan. Perhaps they dig a pit, lure it in then kill it safely from above, or do likewise in a ravine by baiting it in, blocking the entrance and shooting it.

Such plans have a chance of success. How good the plan is determines if it requires a die roll, auto succeeds, or auto fails. I don't have a problem with a good enough plan simply working as intended. Sometimes players will be missing crucial information that will render a good sounding plan useless.

That's what I was getting into with the longsword play. There are consequences for that; each longsword (or indeed rapier or sword-and-shield or axe or dagger) play has a distinct advantage against presented defenses. It has a definite bearing on the outcome of things. Yet to you it's fluff.

In the abstraction of D&D its fluff. In another combat system, such as GURPS, it would matter

To speak to a different part of the counterpoint I was making, it still has a chance of failure. Just as carefully describing how your character is searching for and disarming the trap has a chance of failure. The claim was made that description can bring automatic success, and I'm trying to show how that's something with which I disagree.

Depending on the actual situation, there may not even be a course of action that could automatically succeed. Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. There may be circumstances that arise which require choosing the best of a crop of bad options. There might be trap so terrible that the very best solution has about a 50% chance to work and several more obvious solutions which are even worse.

The point being, just because a really good approach can automatically resolve some challenges doesn't mean that there will always be a way to do so.

With this I have no problem. I have a problem with granting bonuses - or, heaven forbid, automatic success - to players who do that. That should be automatic description. It should be the rogue's equivalent of "I attack with my axe."

The only problem with not rewarding players for doing more than " I attack with my axe" is that "I attack with my axe" is eventually all you are going to get. In time that gets shortened to " I attack/sneak/disable device/etc" Players like to know that their efforts are worth something.

All I'm saying is there's a large difference between throwing a die roll at every problem and front-loading an approach with description to gain a benefit.

I'm also pointing out the inconsistency of how what you're advocating is very, very specific to traps. Yes, I'm aware that's the nature of the thread, but if you're going to give a benefit to one manifestation of player skill, you have to give it to all. Or, if you prefer to think of it that way, punish all instances where the player can't use textual approach and description to gain the benefit.

It is not specific to traps. Traps is just the example I'm using. It also applies to interaction. What a player says matters. Doing an in-character voice doesn't matter, the intent and meaning of what is said DOES matter. If a player decides to take a chance and reveals an important secret to an NPC to gain trust, it matters. If a player is a smartass to a short tempered NPC it matters. Sometimes these things can matter more than a skill die roll.

It comes down to this: Veteran players and war movie watchers know how to approach possible traps. But what about picking pockets? Jane has no idea how to pick a pocket, even though her Rogue is pretty good at it. Why should she be penalized (let's face it, being unable to gain a benefit amounts to a penalty) for not being able to describe the circumstances of her PC's action? Or, put another way, why should she be rewarded in one narrow set of circumstances and not others?

The circumstances of picking a pocket can certainly benefit from approach. If the player has a specific target in mind simply observing them a bit, may improve the odds. Lets say our rogue needs to steal a treasure map from a shifty somewhat paranoid character. Following the shifty NPC around for a bit reveals that he is constantly reaching into his pocket every minute or two to feel that his precious map is safe. This knowledge tells our rogue that she needs to replace the stolen map with a similar sized piece of parchment. She does so and is successful in the switch. Because of that, she has much longer head start because the fool won't realize he has been robbed for several hours.

So there are ways for player input to affect outcomes beyond just traps.

 

[Imaculata]

It is not specific to traps. Traps is just the example I'm using. It also applies to interaction. What a player says matters. Doing an in-character voice doesn't matter, the intent and meaning of what is said DOES matter. If a player decides to take a chance and reveals an important secret to an NPC to gain trust, it matters. If a player is a smartass to a short tempered NPC it matters. Sometimes these things can matter more than a skill die roll.

This is what I meant, and I'd like to expand on this a little.

Asking the players for more information, does not mean the roll or skill is negated completely. It has simply not come into play yet. Asking for more information, is something I think all DM's should do with almost everything in the game, including all actions and yes, even attacking. Its after the player has stated their approach, that the DM can determine the difficulty of the action. Depending on the action, a roll might not be needed. It could fail or succeed without rolling. You should only roll dice when the outcome is uncertain. It the DM rules that an action can impossibly fail/succeed, then why roll dice?

Now suppose the players are trying to persuade an npc to sell them an important item, but the npc is unwilling to do so. This would require a diplomacy check. Now you could just have them roll for diplomacy, OR you could first ask them how they intent to persuade the npc, and then determine the DC based on that. Maybe the players have some information about the item, which would make the npc very willing to get rid of it. Maybe they can convince the npc that the item is cursed, by showing the wounds on the body of one of their party members, even if this is a lie. This would probably be a bluff check instead. Maybe the players convince the npc that the item is very valuable, and so convincing him to sell it to them actually becomes harder, because he raises the price.

The same can happen during combat. Maybe one of the players comes up with some really cool way to attack a monster. "I pick up the mirror and hold it in front of me, facing the medusa!". OR "I leap from the overhanging rock, onto the back of the giant!". Ask the players how their character approaches the situation, rather than asking them what game-action they want to take.

 

[Celebrim]

You're right. That's not equivalent. But I still disagree: It's not the same. It's more. It's an expectation of more detail, specifically - and only - in this one type of interaction with the game world. Why? Why reward one and not the other?

The granularity is present in combat, and is rewarded. It might - at least in D&D not come down to the level of individual sword swings - but combat is granular in how you position your character, the spells you employ, the potions you quaff, the foes you choose to prioritize, the cover you take from missile fire, and whether you choose to attack, take an assist action, charge or fight cautiously, evade or close to melee, trip the foe, bulrush the foe, disarm the foe, enter into a grapple and many other ways. Each of those different propositions influences the outcome of the encounter and creates advantages and disadvantages based on how appropriate and insightful the stratagem is. Because tactical skill is a real thing, a player who lacks tactical skill cannot reasonably play a character that has it. As a DM, I'm acutely aware of this. I can say that an NPC has tactical skill all I want, and given him all the appropriate character indicators of tactical skill, but unless I the DM play the character well that is never going to be represented in play.

This is a very common situation for a DM to be in. I can want to have a funny NPC, but unless I the DM can make my characterization of the NPC funny, the NPC won't be received as funny. I can want an NPC to be likable and accepted by the PC as a comrade or friend, but unless I the DM can make the players like the NPC through my characterization, all the charisma and diplomacy I put on the NPC's character sheet is basically meaningless.

That's not generally what happens. Generally what happens is the DM says, "Okay, give me an Acrobatics or Athletics check to see if you climb." That's actually a penalty.

What generally happens is not the same as what should happen (generally speaking). What should happen is something like, "Ok, make a skill check, and if you succeed then you'll earn some advantage commiserate to the risk you are taking."

In particular, the situation of climbing up a giant and stabling him the neck is a combat maneuver that doesn't exist in stock D&D. I call that maneuver a 'Clinch' maneuver, and its rather the opposite of a grapple maneuver. Instead of entering an enemies space for the purpose of physically controlling his body, what you are doing is entering an enemies space for the purpose of using the enemies own body as a shield against him and getting so close to him that his defenses are negated. In boxing or fencing, this is called getting inside the enemies guard.

And in my game, players propose doing it all the time because its a well defined rule that they have access to and not some ad hoc fiat nebulous thing where they have to worry whether their gamble will be rewarded. Indeed, in the most recent session, the Sidhe Rogue used his Cloak of Gliding to leap off the back of the Champion's hippogriff, acrobatically tumble through the air, and land on the 'head' of the undead warmachine. This proposition offered in natural language much like I've written, "I want to leap off the hippogriff, and dive....", was resolved as a clinch maneuver. It drew an attack of opportunity, but the character after successfully winning the combat maneuver check received a +6 circumstance bonus to hit, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC, and more importantly to the character each round in the clinch if he won a combat maneuver check the target was treated as flatfooted. Even though he can't sneak attack undead, he has an ability that let's him add dex to damage against flatfooted targets. And because the target was two or more sized classes larger than him, he could use his climb skill in place of BAB in combat maneuver checks. So for much of the fight, you had the rogue vigorous stabbing the top of this swaying undead warmachine while he clung to it. That's narrative language that's ultimately no different and no less granular than describing how you search something.

That's what I was getting into with the longsword play. There are consequences for that; each longsword (or indeed rapier or sword-and-shield or axe or dagger) play has a distinct advantage against presented defenses. It has a definite bearing on the outcome of things. Yet to you it's fluff.

In D&D at least. There are combat systems where you secretly declare your maneuver and then compare it to the secretly declared defense of your opponent, and those combat systems make for very interesting, very gritty combat. However, the problem with them is that combat becomes so granular that it cannot be played very quickly, so they are more suitable to games where combat is relatively rare, dramatically important, and the number of players (and foes) is relatively small. I'd use a system like that for an RPG inspired by 18th century romantic fiction like 'The Three Musketeers' or 'The Scarlet Pimpernell'. But the fact that D&D has combat on a rather slightly less granular level doesn't mean that D&D combat is fully abstract, just that it doesn't care about the moment by moment position of sword swings. It still cares very much about fictional positioning during combat. And notably, since the very beginning, D&D has been a game about (at least in part) careful dungeon exploration, so naturally it does care very much about detailed fictional positioning while exploring. It strives to be the sort of game you play for Indiana Jones explores the trap filled Mayan tomb, and if you are playing that game, you don't want to have the protagonist go, "I search for traps", because that makes for a very lame narrative of the story you are telling.

The claim was made that description can bring automatic success, and I'm trying to show how that's something with which I disagree.

Specific narration can bring automatic success. This is my favorite example, but it's worth revisiting - the thing hidden behind a painting. Suppose a player with a +20 search skill searches the 5' square where there is a painting on the wall, and there is something hidden behind the painting. If player says, "I search the area near the painting.", we would expect that with almost any reasonable roll, the DM will give the player some sort of clue, ideally something like, "Your keen senses of observation note that the painting on the wall has been moved repeatedly, and hangs just a fraction of an inch off the wall on one side. Investigating more closely, you see the faintest suggestion on the opposite side that the painting is hinged so as to neatly swing away from the wall." But had instead a player with a -1 search skill said, "I want to look behind the painting.", regardless of what the player rolled on his search check, he still would have found what was hidden there. You don't have to roll to use your eyes and see whatever is obvious.

Note something subtle but important about what I've done in this case. I have not actually said that the player who searched moved or even touched the painting. I have not interpreted anything. I've only presented the hidden clue. This is hugely important because as a DM you don't want to tell player's what their actions are. It's still up to the player who has found the hidden clue to decide to look behind the painting. Why does this matter? Because I haven't yet said if what is behind the painting is a wall safe or a symbol of death. I haven't yet said if what is behind the painting is a small alcove containing a golden idol, or whether moving the painting does 5d8 fire damage to everyone in 10 feet. It's up to the player ultimately to tell me, "I want to move the painting.", and when they do they find whatever is there.

All I'm saying is there's a large difference between throwing a die roll at every problem and front-loading an approach with description to gain a benefit.

I agree. And you have to be careful about how you adjudicate 'stunts' that you don't simply give rewards without risks, and that you are rewarding real creativity, interactivity, and cunning and not just tacking a fiat bonus on top of every player action. For one thing, that very quickly leads to tedious play and repetitive narration.

Yes, I'm aware that's the nature of the thread, but if you're going to give a benefit to one manifestation of player skill, you have to give it to all.

Why? Again, I bring you back to the point that as a DM, manifestations of my skill aren't actually adjudicated the same by the system. It's not the case as a DM that you can approach the game with the idea that you just make abstract propositions using rules languages and be a successful DM. It's painfully obvious to me as a DM that simply writing INT 18 on a character sheet won't make that character intelligent. It's painfully obvious to me as a DM that simply writing CHR 18 on a character sheet won't make that character charming, or witty, or funny, or likable. You have this weird idea that that isn't fair, but in fact it is not only perfectly fair but necessary. You seem to think that it's weird that I can write 20 STR on a character sheet and the character does in fact become strong, but writing 20 INT on the character sheet wouldn't work the same way.

And you are flat out and completely wrong. The two aren't remotely the same things. In the case of the strength, the character's strength does exist entirely in the imagined world. But it's not true that character's intelligence exists entirely in the imagined world, because by necessity my mind has to enter into the imagined world as well. My mind and not my body is necessarily a participant in the imagined world. You can't really remove that from the game. If you tried, I wouldn't be a participant in the imagined world at all, and my actions couldn't direct anything in it.

It comes down to this: Veteran players and war movie watchers know how to approach possible traps. But what about picking pockets? Jane has no idea how to pick a pocket, even though her Rogue is pretty good at it. Why should she be penalized (let's face it, being unable to gain a benefit amounts to a penalty) for not being able to describe the circumstances of her PC's action? Or, put another way, why should she be rewarded in one narrow set of circumstances and not others?

Yes. While she doesn't need to tell me the exact technique Jane uses for picking a pocket, speaking as a player who spent an inordinate amount of time in 1e playing the thief, you still need to know quite a bit about criminal technique to be a good thief. You still need to be able to run a decent con. You need to be able to figure out who is a good mark and who you best avoid. And you need to be able to make a good guess at where the valuables are. Which pocket are you going for? Do you go for the purse, and if so what technique are you going to try - cutting the purse off with a finger blade ('cutpurse'), or loosening it and reaching in ('pickpocket')? Or maybe you just want to cut the bottom of the purse and catch the contents in your hand. It's going to matter if it's a magic pouch. Or maybe you reach in the robes and look for a hidden wallet, or start out by taking the bejeweled dagger, so that if you are caught at least the mark is unarmed. Or maybe it's just better to lure the guy into an ally, sap him in the back of the head, and go through his pockets in a more leisurely fashion.

You see, if you just make propositions like, "I pick his pocket", the problem is you are leaving it entirely up to the DM as to what happens and interpret how you act. You aren't really in control of the situation. Size up the situation. Ask questions. Get details. Appraise things. Then decide what to do. That's good RPing. And note, while the fictional positioning here matters, if the PC isn't in fact a very nimble pick pocket, chances are that all my fictional positioning is just leading up to a very clumsy easily noticed attempt.

It's inconsistent because "I attack with my sword" is exactly equivalent to "I search for traps." Once the warrior closes with the enemy, she attacks. Once the rogue narrows down the search parameters, she searches. There are opportunities for clever play in both scenarios. Why not award both?

I think it is obvious in both cases that that clever play is rewarded in both scenarios.

Why not award the warrior automatic success on an attack? But nobody's saying that. I can't see why; I can't see a difference.

Can you see it now?

And in any event, it's possible by clever play for the warrior to arrange automatic success on an attack. If the warrior arranges for the foe to be helpless (sleeping, paralyzed, bound, etc.), the attack is automatic and indeed in 1e automatically lethal (and in 3e frequently so). Likewise, if the warrior can arrange by clever positioning - charging and flanking, against a flat-footed and entangled prone target, while an ally lends assistance, etc. - to have sufficient bonuses to hit, then his attack when it is declared will nearly automatically hit (failing only on an unlucky 1).

Tactical ability is a skill players ought to cultivate. So is dungeoneering.

 

[psychophipps]

The granularity is present in combat, and is rewarded. It might - at least in D&D not come down to the level of individual sword swings - but combat is granular in how you position your character, the spells you employ, the potions you quaff, the foes you choose to prioritize, the cover you take from missile fire, and whether you choose to attack, take an assist action, charge or fight cautiously, evade or close to melee, trip the foe, bulrush the foe, disarm the foe, enter into a grapple and many other ways. Each of those different propositions influences the outcome of the encounter and creates advantages and disadvantages based on how appropriate and insightful the stratagem is. Because tactical skill is a real thing, a player who lacks tactical skill cannot reasonably play a character that has it. As a DM, I'm acutely aware of this. I can say that an NPC has tactical skill all I want, and given him all the appropriate character indicators of tactical skill, but unless I the DM play the character well that is never going to be represented in play.

This is a very common situation for a DM to be in. I can want to have a funny NPC, but unless I the DM can make my characterization of the NPC funny, the NPC won't be received as funny. I can want an NPC to be likable and accepted by the PC as a comrade or friend, but unless I the DM can make the players like the NPC through my characterization, all the charisma and diplomacy I put on the NPC's character sheet is basically meaningless.



What generally happens is not the same as what should happen (generally speaking). What should happen is something like, "Ok, make a skill check, and if you succeed then you'll earn some advantage commiserate to the risk you are taking."

In particular, the situation of climbing up a giant and stabling him the neck is a combat maneuver that doesn't exist in stock D&D. I call that maneuver a 'Clinch' maneuver, and its rather the opposite of a grapple maneuver. Instead of entering an enemies space for the purpose of physically controlling his body, what you are doing is entering an enemies space for the purpose of using the enemies own body as a shield against him and getting so close to him that his defenses are negated. In boxing or fencing, this is called getting inside the enemies guard.

And in my game, players propose doing it all the time because its a well defined rule that they have access to and not some ad hoc fiat nebulous thing where they have to worry whether their gamble will be rewarded. Indeed, in the most recent session, the Sidhe Rogue used his Cloak of Gliding to leap off the back of the Champion's hippogriff, acrobatically tumble through the air, and land on the 'head' of the undead warmachine. This proposition offered in natural language much like I've written, "I want to leap off the hippogriff, and dive....", was resolved as a clinch maneuver. It drew an attack of opportunity, but the character after successfully winning the combat maneuver check received a +6 circumstance bonus to hit, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC, and more importantly to the character each round in the clinch if he won a combat maneuver check the target was treated as flatfooted. Even though he can't sneak attack undead, he has an ability that let's him add dex to damage against flatfooted targets. And because the target was two or more sized classes larger than him, he could use his climb skill in place of BAB in combat maneuver checks. So for much of the fight, you had the rogue vigorous stabbing the top of this swaying undead warmachine while he clung to it. That's narrative language that's ultimately no different and no less granular than describing how you search something.



In D&D at least. There are combat systems where you secretly declare your maneuver and then compare it to the secretly declared defense of your opponent, and those combat systems make for very interesting, very gritty combat. However, the problem with them is that combat becomes so granular that it cannot be played very quickly, so they are more suitable to games where combat is relatively rare, dramatically important, and the number of players (and foes) is relatively small. I'd use a system like that for an RPG inspired by 18th century romantic fiction like 'The Three Musketeers' or 'The Scarlet Pimpernell'. But the fact that D&D has combat on a rather slightly less granular level doesn't mean that D&D combat is fully abstract, just that it doesn't care about the moment by moment position of sword swings. It still cares very much about fictional positioning during combat. And notably, since the very beginning, D&D has been a game about (at least in part) careful dungeon exploration, so naturally it does care very much about detailed fictional positioning while exploring. It strives to be the sort of game you play for Indiana Jones explores the trap filled Mayan tomb, and if you are playing that game, you don't want to have the protagonist go, "I search for traps", because that makes for a very lame narrative of the story you are telling.



Specific narration can bring automatic success. This is my favorite example, but it's worth revisiting - the thing hidden behind a painting. Suppose a player with a +20 search skill searches the 5' square where there is a painting on the wall, and there is something hidden behind the painting. If player says, "I search the area near the painting.", we would expect that with almost any reasonable roll, the DM will give the player some sort of clue, ideally something like, "Your keen senses of observation note that the painting on the wall has been moved repeatedly, and hangs just a fraction of an inch off the wall on one side. Investigating more closely, you see the faintest suggestion on the opposite side that the painting is hinged so as to neatly swing away from the wall." But had instead a player with a -1 search skill said, "I want to look behind the painting.", regardless of what the player rolled on his search check, he still would have found what was hidden there. You don't have to roll to use your eyes and see whatever is obvious.

Note something subtle but important about what I've done in this case. I have not actually said that the player who searched moved or even touched the painting. I have not interpreted anything. I've only presented the hidden clue. This is hugely important because as a DM you don't want to tell player's what their actions are. It's still up to the player who has found the hidden clue to decide to look behind the painting. Why does this matter? Because I haven't yet said if what is behind the painting is a wall safe or a symbol of death. I haven't yet said if what is behind the painting is a small alcove containing a golden idol, or whether moving the painting does 5d8 fire damage to everyone in 10 feet. It's up to the player ultimately to tell me, "I want to move the painting.", and when they do they find whatever is there.



I agree. And you have to be careful about how you adjudicate 'stunts' that you don't simply give rewards without risks, and that you are rewarding real creativity, interactivity, and cunning and not just tacking a fiat bonus on top of every player action. For one thing, that very quickly leads to tedious play and repetitive narration.



Why? Again, I bring you back to the point that as a DM, manifestations of my skill aren't actually adjudicated the same by the system. It's not the case as a DM that you can approach the game with the idea that you just make abstract propositions using rules languages and be a successful DM. It's painfully obvious to me as a DM that simply writing INT 18 on a character sheet won't make that character intelligent. It's painfully obvious to me as a DM that simply writing CHR 18 on a character sheet won't make that character charming, or witty, or funny, or likable. You have this weird idea that that isn't fair, but in fact it is not only perfectly fair but necessary. You seem to think that it's weird that I can write 20 STR on a character sheet and the character does in fact become strong, but writing 20 INT on the character sheet wouldn't work the same way.

And you are flat out and completely wrong. The two aren't remotely the same things. In the case of the strength, the character's strength does exist entirely in the imagined world. But it's not true that character's intelligence exists entirely in the imagined world, because by necessity my mind has to enter into the imagined world as well. My mind and not my body is necessarily a participant in the imagined world. You can't really remove that from the game. If you tried, I wouldn't be a participant in the imagined world at all, and my actions couldn't direct anything in it.



Yes. While she doesn't need to tell me the exact technique Jane uses for picking a pocket, speaking as a player who spent an inordinate amount of time in 1e playing the thief, you still need to know quite a bit about criminal technique to be a good thief. You still need to be able to run a decent con. You need to be able to figure out who is a good mark and who you best avoid. And you need to be able to make a good guess at where the valuables are. Which pocket are you going for? Do you go for the purse, and if so what technique are you going to try - cutting the purse off with a finger blade ('cutpurse'), or loosening it and reaching in ('pickpocket')? Or maybe you just want to cut the bottom of the purse and catch the contents in your hand. It's going to matter if it's a magic pouch. Or maybe you reach in the robes and look for a hidden wallet, or start out by taking the bejeweled dagger, so that if you are caught at least the mark is unarmed. Or maybe it's just better to lure the guy into an ally, sap him in the back of the head, and go through his pockets in a more leisurely fashion.

You see, if you just make propositions like, "I pick his pocket", the problem is you are leaving it entirely up to the DM as to what happens and interpret how you act. You aren't really in control of the situation. Size up the situation. Ask questions. Get details. Appraise things. Then decide what to do. That's good RPing. And note, while the fictional positioning here matters, if the PC isn't in fact a very nimble pick pocket, chances are that all my fictional positioning is just leading up to a very clumsy easily noticed attempt.



I think it is obvious in both cases that that clever play is rewarded in both scenarios.



Can you see it now?

And in any event, it's possible by clever play for the warrior to arrange automatic success on an attack. If the warrior arranges for the foe to be helpless (sleeping, paralyzed, bound, etc.), the attack is automatic and indeed in 1e automatically lethal (and in 3e frequently so). Likewise, if the warrior can arrange by clever positioning - charging and flanking, against a flat-footed and entangled prone target, while an ally lends assistance, etc. - to have sufficient bonuses to hit, then his attack when it is declared will nearly automatically hit (failing only on an unlucky 1).

Tactical ability is a skill players ought to cultivate. So is dungeoneering.

And I completely disagree with your assessment of the "clinch" maneuver. To be frank, it is trained grapplers that excel at the ranges you discuss and being at bad breath range screws you up just as bad as it does your opponent without specific training.
I'm at work now, but I will certainly address this more thoroughly when time allows.

 

[Celebrim]

And I completely disagree with your assessment of the "clinch" maneuver.

You quoted my whole post just to say that? Help me out here by stating what my assessment of the maneuver was please.

To be frank, it is trained grapplers that excel at the ranges you discuss and being at bad breath range screws you up just as bad as it does your opponent without specific training.

Well, that you can be easily grappled out of a clinch is one of the downsides of the clinch, and one of the effective counters to it. And sure, the better of a fighter you are, the better you do in a clinch and the more easily you can resist one. And there are for example feats like Improved Clinch, that represent specific training and expertise in the clinch.

I'm at work now, but I will certainly address this more thoroughly when time allows.

Sure. But your theory here is now speaking to my 5 years of experience successfully running the maneuver. It better be a good theory. Also, it should reference your practical experience of fights between Sidhe and say Sauropods.

 

[DMSage]

You quoted my whole post just to say that? Help me out here by stating what my assessment of the maneuver was please.



Well, that you can be easily grappled out of a clinch is one of the downsides of the clinch, and one of the effective counters to it. And sure, the better of a fighter you are, the better you do in a clinch and the more easily you can resist one. And there are for example feats like Improved Clinch, that represent specific training and expertise in the clinch.



Sure. But your theory here is now speaking to my 5 years of experience successfully running the maneuver. It better be a good theory. Also, it should reference your practical experience of fights between Sidhe and say Sauropods.

Please stop this horrid line of argument. Move over to a martial arts website to argue it.

 

[psychophipps]

You quoted my whole post just to say that? Help me out here by stating what my assessment of the maneuver was please.

Well, that you can be easily grappled out of a clinch is one of the downsides of the clinch, and one of the effective counters to it. And sure, the better of a fighter you are, the better you do in a clinch and the more easily you can resist one. And there are for example feats like Improved Clinch, that represent specific training and expertise in the clinch.

Sure. But your theory here is now speaking to my 5 years of experience successfully running the maneuver. It better be a good theory. Also, it should reference your practical experience of fights between Sidhe and say Sauropods.

Your response has already spoken volumes, sir. I will deign to your expertise in this matter.

 

[psychophipps]

Please stop this horrid line of argument. Move over to a martial arts website to argue it.

And a bullet dodged, sir! My apologies for almost tripping the wire connected to great unpleasantnesses. Your consideration for us all is greatly appreciated.

 

[Imaculata]

Sure. But your theory here is now speaking to my 5 years of experience successfully running the maneuver. It better be a good theory. Also, it should reference your practical experience of fights between Sidhe and say Sauropods.

Speaking as someone with over 5 years experience in fallacious arguing on internet forums, I disagree with all of you!