D&D 5E (2014) What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

[Aldarc]

From my own limited understanding, I was under the impression that rolling attack rolls and damage rolls simultaneously was a fairly common practice in AL.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, I mentioned that in my post. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, so I'll try again. The "special rules" mentioned are what's commonly called house rules, so a rule about which house rules we're using would be a table rule according to the DMG.

There is no such separation in 5e. The "special" rules are listed under table rules, not house rules. They are all the same according to 5e.

Yes, it's a table rule that's recommended by the DMG.

It's still entirely optional for your table. A recommendation does not make it a rule. It simply says, "Hey, we think this would make a good house rule for your table."

The table rule that the rolls must be made sequentially to keep damage events from entering the fiction before reactions are used, however, is not recommended.

Because that's the default rule, not a table rule. You can't recommend that the adoption a house rule that differs from sequential, if sequential isn't the default.

"3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise."

That's sequential. You make the attack roll(first part of the sequence). On a hit(second part of the sequence), you roll damage(third part of the sequence).

 

[Hriston]

There is no such separation in 5e. The "special" rules are listed under table rules, not house rules. They are all the same according to 5e.

The separation is made by the sentence, "There are the rules of the game, and there are table rules for how the game is played." If you make a "special rule" that changes the rules of the game, that becomes a de facto rule of the game. Table rules are something else. They cover things like who brings pizza and whether all dice will be rolled in the open. Rolling attack and damage at the same time falls under this category.

It's still entirely optional for your table. A recommendation does not make it a rule. It simply says, "Hey, we think this would make a good house rule for your table."

Why do you think you're telling me anything I don't already know?

Because that's the default rule, not a table rule. You can't recommend that the adoption a house rule that differs from sequential, if sequential isn't the default.

"3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise."

That's sequential. You make the attack roll(first part of the sequence). On a hit(second part of the sequence), you roll damage(third part of the sequence).

No, it isn't. Making both rolls together satisfies that rule just fine. Nothing there requires that it's done in any particular order. Resolving an attack without an attack roll, or not rolling damage on a hit when resolving an attack for which rolling damage is specified would be a house rule.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it isn't. Making both rolls together satisfies that rule just fine. Nothing there requires that it's done in any particular order. Resolving an attack without an attack roll, or not rolling damage on a hit when resolving an attack for which rolling damage is specified would be a house rule.

It's essentially an "if, then" statement. If you hit, then you roll damage.

 

[Hriston]

It's essentially an "if, then" statement. If you hit, then you roll damage.

You seem to think it says, "On a miss, you don't roll damage." It doesn't need to say that because rolling damage is different from applying damage.

 

[Lanefan]

So you're not actually interested in talking about the sort of play that Gygax advocated in his DMG?

Taking one outlier example of a particular style of play from the 1e DMG and expanding that to an overall Gygax advocation of that style of play is a rather extreme stretch.

Yet that is exactly how the 5e Shield spell works:

Shield
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell

. . .

An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.

I'm talking about the play of this spell, not the possible workings of a hypothetical game that lacks interrupts.

All this shows me is that the 5e designers are just as capable of making mistakes as anyone else.

I agree that blind declaration is sometimes more exciting. If less tactical.

But that's not the argument that @Lanefan and @Maxperson were running. They were talking about "time travelling", not what makes for more or less fun at the table.

I've been consistently arguing for blind declaration (e.g. that a spell such as Shield must be cast before the to-hit is rolled). The 'time travel' piece (e.g. waiting to cast Shield until you not only know you're hit but how much damage you'll take, so if it's just a few h.p. you can let it pass but if it's a heavy blow you can cast to undo it) is merely a subset of that argument.

Lan-"shields up!"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Whose theory?

That's the whole point of my post, which is an elaboration of one aspect of what (I take it to be that) [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is saying. Some people like to play a RPG in which the GM decides everything that happens except (perhaps, if there is no fudging of the combat rules) who gets beaten in fights. Others don't. And it's hardly a new idea. I already cited Classic Traveller which has rules which allow the players to declare actions which result in NPCs acting one way or another. Moldvay Basic also includes reaction rules, and examples of the players declaring actions which are intended - as mediated by those reaction rules - to determine the behaviour of NPCs (some hobgoblins).

Both Classic Traveller and Moldvay Basic also have morale rules, which are another set of mechanics for determining NPC behaviour.

I'm familiar with morale rules, though I've only ever used them as guidelines for NPC (usually opponents, sometimes henches) actions rather than hard-and-fast determinants.

Moldvay Basic is a version of D&D that I don't own. I've got regular Basic, and all of 1e through 5e except 3.5.

As a general rule it is the purview of the GM in the same way that it is the purview of the GM to decide what a NPC does in combat.

But if a NPC is dead, the GM is bound by that. If a NPC is subject to a Suggestion spell, the GM is bound by that.

Yes, and the same is true for players with regard to their own PCs - players are bound by such things too.

If a NPC is persuaded by a PC, the GM is bound by that.

And here we run aground, because an NPC can't persuade a PC in the same manner without use of spell or magic to back it up. The player is not bound by any persuasion (or intimidation, etc.) roll from the GM, if the GM is even allowed by the rules to do so. To me, this is wrong - if it doesn't work the same for everyone in the fiction then it doesn't work at all.

Thus, if the players were bound by GM-side persuasion rolls then I'd be quite happy with the GM being bound by player-side persuasion rolls. But I'll quickly point out that such a system would be too constraining on player agency over their PCs; and so the only way to make things consistent is to unbind the GM's reactions to match.

That said, a good GM would usually still take any such rolls into account as guidelines when determining a reaction - but would not be bound by them. In the Duchess example, there could be rolls on both the player side (to persuade) and the GM side (general disposition), with both informing but not dictating the Duchess' reaction and with the GM best off not knowing exactly what reaction the PC is trying to get.

*** - note that in the above, the word 'persuasion' is generic; feel free to substitute whatever equivalent social mechanic term makes sense for your system.

The whole function of mechanics is to constrain, and establish, the content of the shared fiction.

Or to get in the way, depending on circumstance.

What do you mean by "the odds" here?

We were talking about a situation where mechanics were in use to help determine the NPC's disposition toward the PC; mechanics mean dice, dice mean random chance, and random chance has odds that can be influenced by in-fiction actions - in this example these actions might include information-gathering, perhaps a little espionage, and so forth in order that the PC's actions and words at the time are most likely* to get, say, the desired reaction from the Duchess.

* - 'most likely' still does not mean guaranteed.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Taking one outlier example of a particular style of play from the 1e DMG and expanding that to an overall Gygax advocation of that style of play is a rather extreme stretch.

All this shows me is that the 5e designers are just as capable of making mistakes as anyone else.

I've been consistently arguing for blind declaration (e.g. that a spell such as Shield must be cast before the to-hit is rolled). The 'time travel' piece (e.g. waiting to cast Shield until you not only know you're hit but how much damage you'll take, so if it's just a few h.p. you can let it pass but if it's a heavy blow you can cast to undo it) is merely a subset of that argument.

Lan-"shields up!"-efan

If your fiction is tightly coupled to the order of dice rolls made at the gaming table, then the mistake is on your end, not in the game rules.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If your fiction is tightly coupled to the order of dice rolls made at the gaming table, then the mistake is on your end, not in the game rules.

I don't see how that could possibly be anything other than simple preference. You could resolve the conflict equally well either by changing the perspective at the table, or by changing the game rules.

 

[Maxperson]

You seem to think it says, "On a miss, you don't roll damage." It doesn't need to say that because rolling damage is different from applying damage.

I may not need to say that, but it does in fact say it. "On a hit, roll damage" is equal to "On a miss, don't roll damage." It's just the way language works.