|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:08PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
You can't actually do a contest and an attack in the same round...one action and move your speed. Both a contest and an attack are actions.
This is why the DM exists, to say "Yeah, that makes sense, I'll allow it."
Actually, no, that's not why the DM exists, at least not for purposes of a playtest. You're bulldozing a poorly defined rule into doing things it quite clearly is not intended to do.
Actually in the how to play document there is an entire sub section that says to exactly do that. It's in the combat actions section. It is the Combat subsection called: "Improvising". Basically if there is an action not described there you can in fact improvise it. something like
Player: "For my turn I want to tumble past this guy then turn around and stab him in the back."
DM:"Okay well thats a dex check to start. I am actually going to make it a dex contest between you and the guy you are tumbling past. The guy you are trying to tumble past will use wisdom to resist. If you roll higher than me you will tumble past and get advantage for any attack actions you take on this turn. If you roll lower than me I will be allowed an opportunity attack with disadvantage. If I hit you with that attack your movement stops and you fall prone, and if it misses you still tumble past but gain no advantage to your attack. It may be harder to hit a moving target but if I hit you while you are upside down you are going on your but. Also if any of your attacks hit I will be stunned till the start of my next turn (I grant advantage to everyone until the start of my next turn and can't take opportunity attacks)"
Great example of something you're not actually allowed to do.
Read the Improvise rules - they are specifically to do things with your ability scores that are not detailed elsewhere in the rules. Stabbing someone is an attack action. Improvise such as the tumbling you describe is the Improvise Action. You can't do both in the same round as per the rules because you can only take one action a round. The examples that are Improvise do not detail making attacks - they involve using your ability scores to do things that are not the attack action.
What you're describing could be lots of fun, but when doing a playtest, you need to run things by the rules that are described, not the rules as you'd wish them to be or changes to them that you would make for your own game.
The player elected to move past the enemy with some tumbling I as the DM decide that there is a chance of failure for that so I have the player make a check. I could do this as a contest or as a straight check depending upon what I choose. So in fact I don't have to roll. The player just gets to roll vs a DC I as the DM set. I'm gunna go with a value equivalent to the wisdom score of the guy he is trying to tumble by just to keep it relative to the situation which is totally my choice because the DC is equivalent to the difficulty of the task. I say the task is as difficult as the enemy is able to make it. From there I can then set rewards for successfully rolling (having advantage on the next attack action you take which you can do this turn) or repurcussions for failure the enemy hits you and knocks you prone mid movement.
from there we can also look at the DM's guide where it straight out encourages what I am doing. Under the section "Engaging the Player" Page 3 of the document. It basically says we want you to fudge around in these rules. They in fact want to see how easy it is to do that. They want to make sure it is flexible and doesn't restrict actions by making what I described as awesome from even being possible
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:12PM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Jul 17, 2004
|
Hit dice are not bastardized healing surges; they're actually in 3.5 and earlier.
The words were in earlier editions, but the mechanics were not.
In previous editions your Hit Dice determined your Total Hit Points, not the number of hit points you recover while resting and healing.
So, while the terminology is old, the 5e method in which Hit Dice are used is very derivative of 4e's Surges or Fasa's old --1991-- Earthdawn game's 'Recovery Tests'.
And, in that way, they are a bastardization of 4e more than a reincarnation of Old School Hit Dice.
"I'm just killing time, since it's killing us."
--Cyon Fal'Duur, Pathfinder Chronicler: Rogue Ascendant
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:17PM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2010
|
Hit dice are not bastardized healing surges; they're actually in 3.5 and earlier.
The words were in earlier editions, but the mechanics were not.
In previous editions your Hit Dice determined your Total Hit Points, not the number of hit points you recover while resting and healing.
So, while the terminology is old, the 5e method in which Hit Dice are used is very derivative of 4e's Surges or Fasa's old --1991-- Earthdawn game's 'Recovery Tests'.
And, in that way, they are a bastardization of 4e more than a reincarnation of Old School Hit Dice.
You're rolling hit dice to determine your total hit points in Next. WotC just conveniently removed that ****storm from the pre-gens by having them scale by half hit die each level. I'd say that using hit dice for healing is just them tacking on that part to "appease" 4E players who are losing their surges by incorporating an old school concept instead of the other way around.
Wizard's first rule: People are stupid.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:39PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
I, as the fighter, tackle the opponent. Do I occupy the same square as my opponent? Can my allies still target him, since I will most likely be on top of him? Can he target me, or can he only target those next to us? What actions can I take while keeping him down? Both hands are occupied, so I obviously can't attack. Would he have disadvantage on other targets, or only me if he is even capable of doing so?
And I, as DM, determine this on the fly, because the fighter is bored of making basic attacks. I create a rule on a single situation from the thousand factors involved in it, because his class was designed to do only the most basic of actions and have to rely on the player's ability to improv, while he watches his friend play a wizard and cast spells that do ridiculous things. While the cleric has its own ability and spells, doing things themselves planned by the designers, while the fighter remains reliant on feats and and in-game situations to do comparable things.
It is honestly hard to call something so stacked in the favor of certain players a game, and I don't really need a book to role-play.
Also this kind of more "freeform combat from fighter" that was mentioned on this topic, will create on table discussion between players and DM in the middle of the combat more than half of the time. This actually slow down combat on d&dnext more than the power cards from 4e...alot more...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 24, 2012 - 11:45PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2010
|
I honestly don't understand the cr*p powers take from so many people. Sure, you pick and choose what you want your characters to have, but nothing in 4E limited gameplay to just those things you figuratively held in your hand. It's just meant as an easy way for inexperienced players to be able to do cool stuff without having previous RPG experience to draw from, while experienced players can still say, I'm going to jump onto this table, and do a spinning cleave that will attempt to lop the heads off all those enemies clustered there. Even if it doesn't say something like that explicitly on a power card.
But I have to agree that not specifying anything at all does not help matters in the slightest. New players will look at it and say, well, so...I guess I attack. And attack... This is EXACTLY how I wanted to spend my gaming night.
Wizard's first rule: People are stupid.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 12:09AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Bloody hell, people. If you play a Fighter and you never do anything but make attack rolls, that is your fault. Fourth edition has trained players to look at their character sheet to see what their powers allow them to do. Fifth edition is, very specifically, the opposite of that. You say what you want to do, and you make a check to do it. You don't have to have a power to do it, you just do it.
Use a Strength contest to shove the other guy into a pit. Use a Dexterity contest against an enemy during your movement to fake them out; if you win, you gain Advantage for your attack this turn; if you lose, the enemy gains Advantage on their next attack against you. Dexterity check, DC 13 to swing from the chandelier and crash into your enemy: if you succeed, make a melee attack with +1d6 damage. If you fail (by 10 or more, as per the Hazard rules), fall flat on your face. Strength check DC 15 to throw a barrel of water down the stairs; if you succeed, anybody on the stairs has to make a DC 13 Dexterity save to avoid being knocked prone and taking 1d6 damage. Dexterity contest vs. Dexterity or Constitution to throw sand in a guy's eyes, blinding him until he uses an action to clear it out. Strength check to tip over a bookcase, forcing anyone on the other side to make a Dexterity save to avoid being pinned underneath. Anything you can think to do, you can do. But not if you're looking at your character sheet for inspiration, because they can't possible outline every possible action, no matter how many powers you have.
Yes, everybody can try these stunts. But Fighters will be better at them, as their primary stats are the Physical stats, so they'll be higher. Wizards and Clerics will need more mental stats, so won't be as good at these sorts of stunts. Even a Rogue will want Wisdom and Charisma for perception and social skills. Beyond that, a Fighter's ability to smash face is still balanced with the abilities of other classes; the only problem is that it feels boring to only attack and attack and attack, no matter how effectively you're attacking. But if you can't come up with something to do other than swinging your sword, that is your problem. You don't get to blame the game system for your own lack of creativity, especially when you're playing a game that's specifically designed to thrive on creativity.
(And yes, I'm aware that this type of play and stuntwork requires a DM that's not a useless lump... but having a decent DM has always been important in D&D. That's not new.)
Sir, you won the thread.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 1:00AM
#97
|
|
|
Quick question:
Do people understand that if players are expected to do freeform actions and have the DM set DCs on the fly based on nothing more than whim, there is no reason to buy DnD books, right? Asking players and DMs to make up most of the rules that make the game interesting means that DnD products don't add value to the game or the hobby any more and you can't expect players to buy your stuff.
I don't know about anyone else, but I buy a rulebook for a good set of rules and I learn the rules so that I know what I'm in for when I agree to play. I don't buy a rulebook so that I can do all the work of making the rules and then play Magic Tea Party or Calvinball with the DM.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 1:14AM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2008
|
Your Wizard was upset that he couldn't wear armor? Uhhh... Think he picked the wrong class, lol. True, Eldritch Knight, Swordmage, etc. could wear armor, but those aren't Wizard. They're Eldritch Knight, Swordmages, etc. Wizards have never really worn armor until they multi-class or prestige class into things like that, so why would they be able to now?
Actually, in 3E, the wizard could wear armor all day if he wanted to do so and had the proficiencies for it. However, casting spells while wearing that armor had a chance of failure.
The option was there, but I've yet to meet any pure wizard-type who actually used it.
I've also seen many 4e wizards have a decent con so they could take armor proficiency feats and be a LOT tankier. I like armored mages, they're a fun way to play the class.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been."
- Manwë, High King of the Valar
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 1:53AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2011
|
a.) Great example of something you're not actually allowed to do.
Read the Improvise rules - they are specifically to do things with your ability scores that are not detailed elsewhere in the rules. Stabbing someone is an attack action. Improvise such as the tumbling you describe is the Improvise Action. You can't do both in the same round as per the rules because you can only take one action a round. The examples that are Improvise do not detail making attacks - they involve using your ability scores to do things that are not the attack action.
b.) What you're describing could be lots of fun, but when doing a playtest, you need to run things by the rules that are described, not the rules as you'd wish them to be or changes to them that you would make for your own game.
a.) The DM is "not actually allowed to do" something? I disagree.
b.) This is so false it's not even funny. As a DM, if you find something necessary to change in this playtest, doing so will create valuable feedback. It's much more valuable to say "I thought that this rule sucked, so I tried this, and it was great." than "I thought this rule sucked. Fix it." If we weren't "allowed" to alter the rules in this playtest, then we wouldn't be playtesting D&D. The DM changing the rules as He or She sees fit is even more a core of the game than the rules themselves.
Lastly, the DM Guidelines doc encourages fudging of the rules, so yes...fudging the rules IS part of this playtest.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 2:25AM
#100
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Stabbing someone is an attack action. Improvise such as the tumbling you describe is the Improvise Action. You can't do both in the same round as per the rules because you can only take one action a round. The examples that are Improvise do not detail making attacks - they involve using your ability scores to do things that are not the attack action.
What you're describing could be lots of fun, but when doing a playtest, you need to run things by the rules that are described, not the rules as you'd wish them to be or changes to them that you would make for your own game.
I don't see why, in the case of tumbling or a similar movement related skill check/contest, you couldn't just call it an Improvised Move and allow them to continue with the rest of their action.
|
|
|
