D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[pemerton]

For example, according to RAW, the aforementioned "ray of truth" still hurts the mindless centipede. The mechanics (=eldritch blast affects any creature) calls the shots on the outcome in the fiction (=centipede is damaged). The reverse is not necessarily true: if the eldritch blast is reskinned as a 'ray of truth', and the desired fiction is that the ray of truth will not affect mindless creatures, then the centipede is still damaged anyway according to RAW.

The situation seems to be that (i) the mechanics say that "ray of truth" hurts all creatures, even emotionless ones, and (ii) the players prefers that "ray of truth" play on its target's emotions, and (iii) the player doesn't want to narrate in some further feature of the situation (like weakening an ooze by mocking Juiblex) that would reconcile (ii) with (i).

The same thing can happen in AD&D, which permits 2 bow shots per minute, even though many people would prefer a rate of fire closer to mediaeval maximums, and would prefer not to narrate in additional complications (poor lighting, poor weather, etc) that might explain the less-than-optimal rate of fire (whereas Gygax seems to have been happy enough with narrating such additional complications).

In both situations, houseruling therefore seems to be required.

The most natural solution to the AD&D problem is to increase the rate of bowfire (pehaps with rules to slow it down again in bad lighting or inclement weather). Of course, this might produce imbalance with melee. (So shorten the round. Which then might have odd consequences for movement rates - moving anywhere on the battlefield becomes inordinately expensive in terms of attack forgone. Etc.)

The most natural solution to the 4e problem is to make centipedes and other mindless creatures immune to psychic damage (although there are additional complications if the ray in fact did radiant damage, as per LostSoul's later post), or at least to "emotional burdens" damage (which is, in effect, what LostSoul did). As always, this may have balance implications, which I think is why the 4e designers themselves don't do this sort of thing, and (for better or worse) leave it up to houserulings.

THAT is what I was referring to when I wrote "calling the shots" in reply to LostSoul's example.

<snip>

Apparently, that made LostSoul's player happy, and I "get" that.

For me, this seems to fit well with the distinction between "reading the fiction off the mechanical resolution", and "casually agreeing on the fiction with the mechanical resolution setting parameters for that".

I think this is a pretty big difference of preference. As has probably come out through my posts, though, the main thing that puzzles me about it is why people put up with it for hit points when they hate it anywhere else. I don't get why hit points get such a free ride - not that they don't deserve it (or do deserve it - I mean, it's a mechanic, it doesn't deserve anything) - but why do people who want the mechanics to determine the content of the fiction not got to systems that don't have such a prominent mechanic that thwarts that desire?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because, looking at it, while I haven't played it, it looks pretty much identical to the 4e fighter, just with a new coat of paint. The Expertise dice (is that the right term?) is a player resource that recharges after a set period of time. All they did was take an Essentials Fighter, give it lots of encounter powers, and add in a die mechanic.

What? Take another look, there's no resemblance.

The mechanic is actually called 'Combat Superiority' dice, and that term is the only thing 4e about it. They refresh each /turn/, so they are neither a daily nor an encounter resource, nothing like encounter powers. They give the fighter a damage-improvement progression (in lieu of a BAB progression, since this is bounded accuracy), and can be traded in to 'parry' and reduce damage. The Fighter also gets a Fighting Style that gives him 3 alternate tricks over 5 levels. Presumably, after that, you get something else, or more Fighting Styles. Fighting Styles and the CS-dice-trade-in tricks they let you pull get the same every-other-level progression and are about comparable in both structure and apparent value to a Specialty (re-named Theme), so this is the Fighter's 'bonus Theme' that they were talking about, before.

I can understand you accidentally calling them 'Expertise' dice. In 3e, the Fighter could take a Combat Expertise feat that let him trade in his BAB (his primary meter of level progression in 3e) for AC, which is very similar to trading the CS damage progression for other maneuvers in 5e.

If the 5e CS fighter is a 'new coat of paint' on an old fighter, it's the 3.x fighter that received the treatment - a straightforward progression, simple to the point of design elegance, that's customizeable via an every-other-level progression of bonus feats.

And the 3e fighter was just associatastic - and tier 5 - nothing to complain about there.

 

[pemerton]

I think one of the main differences here is that 4e expects the players (including the DM) to maintain genre conventions.

I agree with this. In the "Why I like skill challenges" thread I called it "genre logic".

LostSoul had a good post about not too long ago, which elaborates on the idea:

How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow). Just because it's DC 120 to balance on a cloud doesn't mean that characters can't attempt it at 1st level; they'll just always fail. The relationship between colour and the reward system doesn't change over time: you know that, if you can score a DC 120 balance check, you can balance on clouds; a +1 to your Balance check brings you that much closer to success.

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

I think that is very perceptive, and it is important to understanding who is "correct" and who is "incorrect" in filling in the narrative details around the outcome of some piece of action resolution.

By using this rationalization, a player can just as easily look at the character sheet, and see that he just used an encounter power. He can then "impart on the character" the "feeling" that the particular opening for that technique will probably not present itself again. Does he know if it will open again? No. But he keeps fighting using other techniques as openings happen. Mulling over why that opening does not present itself again won't get him out of this mess.

<snip>

The player is no more trying to fill a void with justifications in this example than in your HP example. I don't see this as a justification, and I don't see your example of HP as a justification.

I see it as the player being immersed in the "game narrative" and showing/describing his character's perspective.

<snip>

With the HP description you went to great lengths to "justify" it in your "character's" mind with all kinds of gyrations. When I read that, I didn't look at it as you trying to justify the HP mechanics. I looked at it as you getting in character and immersing within the "game fiction."

I agree with all of this.

 

[Hussar]

What? Take another look, there's no resemblance.

The mechanic is actually called 'Combat Superiority' dice, and that term is the only thing 4e about it. They refresh each /turn/, so they are neither a daily nor an encounter resource, nothing like encounter powers. They give the fighter a damage-improvement progression (in lieu of a BAB progression, since this is bounded accuracy), and can be traded in to 'parry' and reduce damage. The Fighter also gets a Fighting Style that gives him 3 alternate tricks over 5 levels. Presumably, after that, you get something else, or more Fighting Styles. Fighting Styles and the CS-dice-trade-in tricks they let you pull get the same every-other-level progression and are about comparable in both structure and apparent value to a Specialty (re-named Theme), so this is the Fighter's 'bonus Theme' that they were talking about, before.

I can understand you accidentally calling them 'Expertise' dice. In 3e, the Fighter could take a Combat Expertise feat that let him trade in his BAB (his primary meter of level progression in 3e) for AC, which is very similar to trading the CS damage progression for other maneuvers in 5e.

If the 5e CS fighter is a 'new coat of paint' on an old fighter, it's the 3.x fighter that received the treatment - a straightforward progression, simple to the point of design elegance, that's customizeable via an every-other-level progression of bonus feats.

And the 3e fighter was just associatastic - and tier 5 - nothing to complain about there.

Meh, it's closer to at will powers, with a palate that you can choose from for me. You have your X number of "stunts" or powers, or whatever you want to call them, and you spend your dice on those powers as needed. Since the dice go up, the tricks also improve by level. And, it's not a huge leap to think that at the next "tier" (whether they call it that or not) these tricks will take on quasi magical effects as well. And, it's not a huge stretch to think that your initial tricks will be limited to the two that are mandated in the playtest doc either.

It's not terribly difficult to make the 5e fighter look a lot like the 4e fighter. Look at the Dwarven Fighter pregen. That's not all that far off. Only thing that's really missing is the marking ability.

Speaking of marking. Is marking by a fighter associated or dissociated?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Meh, it's closer to at will powers, with a palate that you can choose from for me.

Which is in no way like an AEDU fighter. OTOH, it shares one of the strengths of the 3e fighter design.

Speaking of marking. Is marking by a fighter associated or dissociated?

It's in 4e, so dissociated. Seriously, though, the fighter mark applies even if you're on the other side of the battlefield. It's only a -2, but a -2 because some guy looked kinda mean when he /missed/ you three seconds ago is an association that's pretty easy to argue against.

 

[Shadeydm]

I wonder how the dissociative mechanics crowd feels about the 5e fighter.

Because, looking at it, while I haven't played it, it looks pretty much identical to the 4e fighter, just with a new coat of paint. The Expertise dice (is that the right term?) is a player resource that recharges after a set period of time. All they did was take an Essentials Fighter, give it lots of encounter powers, and add in a die mechanic.

How is the 5e fighter holding up for you folks?

I find the action dice to be an interesting mechanic however I don't see why it should be fighter only and I don't see why it should be a core assumption of the game instead of an optional module.

 

[pemerton]

Is marking by a fighter associated or dissociated?

the fighter mark applies even if you're on the other side of the battlefield. It's only a -2, but a -2 because some guy looked kinda mean when he /missed/ you three seconds ago is an association that's pretty easy to argue against.

I've run this by my group - which has a fighter and a paladin PC - and they think of it as mixed (much like hit points are often treated in a mixed way).

Sometimes it's "associated" - ie the fighter is doing something that upsets the enemy and draws its attention. Sometimes it's pure metagame - in effect, a debuff token that the player of the fighter has placed on the GM's NPC or monster.

The paladin power "Valiant Strike" - +1 to hit for each adjacent foe - is another example that's a bit like this. Is it "associated" - the paladin's ire is raised the more foe's that surround him or her? Or is it a metagame buff that encourages the player of the paladin to play the PC as valiant, because doing so (ie charging into a group of foes) draws bonuses to hit? I reckon either, or a bit of both, depending on player and group and context and mood.

I like this flexibility in 4e, and find this sort of mixing of game and metagame one of the attractive features of D&D. The metagame aspect encourages a certain sort of fiction, which the same abilities, interpreted in a more ingame fashion, then help reinforce.

Applying this back to marking: at the pure metagame level it encourages the GM to focus on the fighter, or alternatively gives the fighter multiple attacks, either of which outcomes tends to make the fighter the focus of the melee action, which reinforces that s/he's the threatening one on which the monsters are focused - which then flavours the mark away from pure metagame to an ingame thing as well.

Provided you like the fairly stereotypical fiction these sorts of mechanics tend to produce, I think they work pretty well.

 

[Shadeydm]

Unless I've misunderstood, you seem to be saying here that the tendency of "dissociative" mechanics to drive apart PC and character is relative to particular players, and not a general property of those mechanics. In which case we are in agreement. But also, because I am not you, I can't know in advance what mechanics will dissociate you and what will not.

For example, I know that you are not dissociated by hit points, but I don't really know why: after all, when hit points are getting low, how does the PC know that the next blow will probably be fatal, given that so many of the previous ones were not? (The player knows this because s/he can look at the number on the character sheet, and extrapolate from the game's damage mechanics.)

My best guess, though you haven't really confirmed this I don't think, is that you interpret hit points as "meat". Of course, this has other well-known somewhat curious consequences within the fiction, like (i) no physical penalties for having your meat hacked away, and (ii) high level fighters apparently having more meat than elephants (Gygax in particular seems to have been bothered by this second issue).

Hopefully I can clarify this for the "what about hit points" crowd. When I sit down to watch a Sci Fi movie Faster than Light Travel is often an assumption that I have to accept in such movies. I know its not possible but its so widely used in Sci Fi that its not immersion shattering for me. It does not follow however that you can pile layer after layer of silly or arbitrary impossibilities and I should accept them just because i can overlook FtLT one has nothing to do with the other if you pile enough straws on the camels back there is invariably a tipping point where immersion is lost as is interest in the movie.
Similarly when I sit down to play D&D hit points have always been there much like FtLT however it does not follow that I have to swallow silliness like encounter power being attacks that depend upon a unique once per battle opening or jellies being knocked prone or quantum wounding or the mind bending effects of CaGI.

 

[Underman]

The situation seems to be that (i) the mechanics say that "ray of truth" hurts all creatures, even emotionless ones, and (ii) the players prefers that "ray of truth" play on its target's emotions, and (iii) the player doesn't want to narrate in some further feature of the situation (like weakening an ooze by mocking Juiblex) that would reconcile (ii) with (i).

Ideally ivory tower, my playstyle goal isn't to reconcile iii with i. The goal is to be in-character and focus on ii. To do iii, one would have to withdraw to author or director stance. To do iii and remain in actor stance would be difficult for me. And if I did withdraw from actor stance to do iii, choosing a narration like "weakening an ooze by mocking Juiblex" would shred any immersion left because I dislike it so much.

The same thing can happen in AD&D, which permits 2 bow shots per minute, even though many people would prefer a rate of fire closer to mediaeval maximums, and would prefer not to narrate in additional complications (poor lighting, poor weather, etc) that might explain the less-than-optimal rate of fire (whereas Gygax seems to have been happy enough with narrating such additional complications).

i guess that for you, since you brought it up, those (houseruling the eldritch blast and houseruling bow rates of fire) are somehow analagous and worth contrasting.

For someone interested in having D&D model historical assumptions about medieval bow rate of firing, they're probably more analogous but I'm not sure and I doubt its a concern for the average D&D player.

For me, they're not analagous and so not worth comparing.

Of course, this has to do with my expectations from the playstyle. Certain people may assume that my playstyle tries to have (here, definitions raises its ugly head) "simulationist" expectations of consistently and comprehensively modeling real-life stuff. That would be a misunderstanding as I've been trying to point out.

As always, this may have balance implications, which I think is why the 4e designers themselves don't do this sort of thing, and (for better or worse) leave it up to houserulings.

I think it was for "the better" for 4E players who liked the system as is, and for "the worse" for everyone else who felt that leaving it up to houseruling didn't support their playstyle. But I'm stating the obvious.

I think this is a pretty big difference of preference. As has probably come out through my posts, though, the main thing that puzzles me about it is why people put up with it for hit points when they hate it anywhere else. I don't get why hit points get such a free ride - not that they don't deserve it (or do deserve it - I mean, it's a mechanic, it doesn't deserve anything) - but why do people who want the mechanics to determine the content of the fiction not got to systems that don't have such a prominent mechanic that thwarts that desire?

I don't know how to articulate it in a way that you could parse and accept, anymore than anybody else has already tried to do so on the last several pages of this thread or other threads. Or how to prove that Nagol et al have not been successful so far in this regard simply due to some sort of hole in their understanding.

 

[Advilaar]

I keep seeing this huge ass thread bumped. I guess it is time for some of my observations since it is always in my face.

There will be those old timer DMs and players say that a true DM develops his own system that works. Actually, this is true. A good DM can make his own game. BUT - there is trouble in paradise.

As time goes on, there is turnover in gaming. Folks quit. They get married. They get busy jobs.

New people come in. But, all they know is what is currently out there. they may have had futive attempts with bad DMs. Thier patience is low. After all, World of warcraft as inferior as it is to true PnP gaming is right there. They do not want to cope with some guyd new system, they want classic whatever edition is favored.

Older gamers want to relive the glory of past games that they lucked up to get into with old friends. Maybe they have a huge investment in books for that edition as well. But as editions go on, new "blood" is hard to come by.

Now unlike 4e, which has some good things but developed in secrecy, let's give hope a chance. Give feedback. take what works and houserule the rest! It is what us nerds do best!

it is also what all of us, even 4e/3e/2e folks will do.