Enarla I'm guessing you never stopped to notice for even a moment that the way the rules work AS WRITTEN that whole chandalier thing is 1 action. Swinging on the chandalier isn't a seperate action from movement, that is part of the movement action. As one single move action the player moves up to the chandalier, jumps onto it, and swings. Individual checks for the jump and or swing aren't seperate actions, they are part of it. If one of them fails then the move action ends prematurely and penalty is imposed at your digression. If they both succeed the player continues as they would with either an attack action (the drop onto the enemy) or trading the attack for an extra move action to continue swinging possibly to a ledge or an empty space on the floor where they keep moving up to their base speed. Seperating those actions to multiple moves is dumb and also not how the rules describe it. Also, it is part of the rules that you, as DM, SHOULD make minor adjustments to keep the flow and feel of the game progressing naturally. Obviously Seperating those actions into multiple rounds disrupts the natural flow and feels unnatural. Therefor it is your job as described in the DM guide to make rulings accordingly to protect that integrity of roleplay
SSaffahh: Swinging this way is described part of an improvise action, and not as a way to move. So I beg to disagree. And seemingly you ignore what is in improvise action. Mind if I ask: if you know it is from the description of improvise action, why do you say it isn't but it is part of a move?
Obviously stating that improvise and attack are both actions and you can't do them at same time prevents any and all resourceful tactics, where your improvised trick would catch the enemy by a surprise attach.
Obviously the swinging is an action and not a move because it keeps your hands busy for most of the round, so no casting, no grabbing stuff, no drawing sword, etc. can be done. It also rules out most attacks, since you need your hands for that, for long enough to open up the enemy defenses.
lol... it's like you don't even TRY to make these troll attempts look legit
the text clearly says under "Improvise" that the limits to these are only your imagination AND that the DM should make judgements as to how these actions work as they are NOT detailed elsewhere in the rules.
Additionally, this section, while grouped with the attack actions in text, does not say that it uses up your "attack action" itself to do. it is simply explained near them. it does not at all limit you from doing them as part of your move. Movement in combat is a very short area of text designed to explain HOW to move, not what qualifies as a move.
and to go yet further, to make the swing a part of the move is only one of many perspectives. the swing may also be a part of the attack action just as easily. the player can move up to the chandalier, then begin their attack action as a swing and drop all as one complex action. this option actually frees up the player to be able to then also stand up or regain balance as needed and make MORE movement if they didn't use up their entire movement getting to the chandalier.
I was not trying to get personal, If I did, I apologize. I was just replying to what I read. You all ridiculed the rules without trying to actually examine them and interpret them. You found one literally way to read them without trying to find a different way to read them.
Most others haven't run into this brick-wall of nothing-can-be-done attitude that you've taken. I tried, many times, to give you a different take on the game. Not once have you replied with any slightest budge in trying to see it any other person's way.
I've agreed with you, I've accepted the flaws and suggested ways to make Next/5E better, as have many, many others.
I know I can't be wrong in saying that many of us just don't find you to be willing to even come 10% of the way towards our thinking or trying to understand what *is* in next to work with. You hammer 100% away at why you think, and I quote, "isn't worse, but much worse" than anything that's ever come before it.
A DM that absolutely hates the game system he's running is not going to have players who'll enjoy it either.
That's all. Nothing personal, just pointing out what seems obvious to me.
I don't think the human is unbalanced, I would just like their benefit to be something other than straight ability score bonuses. The issue, for me, is it means that the default human is as graceful as a wood elf, as hardy as a hill dwarf, as smart as a high elf, as charming as a stout halfling, etc, which invalidates the bonuses that the non-human races get from a /story/ perspective.
This has been my problem with humans in previous editions as well. They never seem to balance out compared to the other races, either too good or bad.
The bonus to attributes seems to be a lot, but I'm not completely sure how it works within gameplay. Compared to other players the attributes will definetely be above, unless the player rolled stats really low.
I don't have any problem with the increased stats, my problem has always been more with how plain humans are presented in this univerce. Though perhaps limited more to my imagination.
That being said, I don't believe that these increases really change anything, since the majority of the races have a broad array of abilties to compensate.
Dwarfs have Immunity to deiease, low light vision, increased damage with certain weapons, the ability to move unhindered in heavy armour and additional adjustments depending on subrace, both of them quite solid.
Elves have a shorter rest period, Immunity to sleep and bless, low light vision, damage increase with certain weapons, advantage on checks based on very useful adventuring abilities and an additional pair of solid bonuses depending on the subrace.
Hobbits are perfectly designed to use sneak attack, can move through hostile creature squares, again gets damage increase on a common weapon type and gets a nice ability that enables them to alter pair of bad rolls for the day. They also get a stat increase and fairly nice abilities depending on subrace.
Humans get a 2 bonus stat points to one section, and 1 in the rest. This has a really nice benfit that combos with class bonuses and enables them to really optimalise their level up growth. Thats pretty much it though, since they don't get any other static benfits that would be useful for a more specialised class (Wood Elves and Hobbits make better rogues and ranged combatants. Dwarves generally are at least on par as Fighters and Immunity to a entire range of deicease is remarkably useful.) 0 I really don't think it makes them better then the other races since there are very definate perks. The only thing I might consider is raising the static bonus for the subrace bonus up so it's a stat adjustment of 2. Even that might make playing a human largely redundant. I am slightly more concerned about Elves getting advantage on perception more then anything else, since practically nothing will remain hidden for very long and that wood elves get a extra square of movement for no real reason.
Good points all-'round, everyone. My concerns simply have only to do with the oddly high statistics that human players end up with, not with the advantages provided to the other races - which are quite adequate. No, it just worries me that the human characters - or player characters in general - are going to be hitting the ceiling early on. See, we're not even quite sure what the upper limits of the statistics are going to be. We could end up with limits closer to those found in 2nd Edition - a distinct possibility given the "feel" (yes, there's that word again) the designers seem to be going for - or we could be looking at powerful player characters commonly busting into the mid-twenties ala 3E. I just don't have any idea as to the scope that the designers have in mind.
Now, with that said; Enerla, I've read a few of your posts in various threads, and it's obvious that you, like many others coming into this playtest, have shown up to the party with a somewhat negative outlook. I did as well, and I still have my misgivings, but what you need to realize is this: None of us, not a single bloody one o' us, is gonna end up getting exactly the game we want. That's just the reality, and it's been the reality since the get-go. We have people, like yourself, who enjoy Dragonlance-ish type games (I base this on the frequency with which you've mentioned this particular setting in some of your posts and the style of play you seem to be going for), there are those of us who're 'nards from the old days that can't stand the "twinkfest that was 3E," there are guys like me who were raised on 2nd and ended up loving 3.X, there are the guys who love their powers and grid combat, there are guys whose only concern is to see the "&%$#@$% mess 4E made out of the planar cosmology" repaired, some have shown up simply hoping to see the end of the dragonborn, some guys want a fluff-free system in which they may run any fantasy trope and so "balance" and "death to the sacred cows" are their watchwords, you'll find others who say things like "Want balance, want a system where you can play any trope? Go play X or Y, this is D&D. There are certain assumptions that exist within the rules because of the universe the game takes place in," there are players and DMs hoping to see this edition succeed, and there are players and DMs who just want to see the whole shebang go up in a flamin' &%#$storm. There are thousands upon thousands of customers, every one with their own opinions, and none of them will end up being totally satisfied with the product that's being marketed to them. That's just how the cookie crumbles. Now, I can see where you're coming from, but if you really aren't having any sort of success with this system you need to ask yourself if bothering with it is worth the time and effort. Others have told you that if you're expecting "Enerla: The Roleplaying Game" you're going to end up being terribly disappointed, and I agree with those folks. Mind you, if you can get past that line of thinking, and if you just start running the playtests in a constructive fashion, you might end up at least having some fun with this whole messy process. If you can't see your way to doing that, well, then this is going to be an incredibly frustrating experience for ya. You're here, like most of us, to make yourself heard and to possibly have some input on the way the next edition is gonna end up looking, but if you're hoping for D&D Next to be 100% your D&D... it's very unlikely that you're going to be a customer when Next is in the shops, which is essentially what you've stated in various threads. Also, loosening up a wee bit and having another look at the mechanics might help you be a bit more successful with your game. And don't waste your time banging your head against a brick wall; trying to run a game with a system you're absolutely frustrated with isn't conducive to any sort of positive gaming experience.
Anyhoo, that about covers it.
Edit: Another observation, folks: I've heard that one of the reasons humans were given the higher stat bonuses was to encourage more people to play them, thus returning D&D to its "humanocentric roots". If this is the case, I must say that it's not working out all that well. Out of a rotating party of seven player characters, I've got a total of two humans. Not even the players familiar with D&D picked human characters, though one was waffling back and forth between a human and dwarf for a bit. I suppose that's something? Anyway, yeah, not sure if what I've heard is a fact or not, but I just thought I'd toss that out there.
lol... it's like you don't even TRY to make these troll attempts look legit
As I see you still throw insults and blatantly lie in your posts. Either that or you doesn't understand that the sequence of combat turn specifies you can do one action. And the book lists different actions to choose that one from.
Improvise and attack are both actions. One action each. And core assumption of the system is that you can't combine effects of multiple actions at will, as such combined actions are fighter maneuvers you learn. Like knock down.
And as you see if someone hits you this bad from the back you would both get hit (damage) and would be knocked down which implies it is a knock down meneuver. As the character doesn't have knock down meneuver, she cannot "trip" and "attack" the same time.
When you fall on someone, some of your body parts will hit him with considerable force. At this moment you would "trip" and "hit" him at same time. But by the rules these two effects should happen in separate rounds. Yes, the thing that happen in same time in the setting should belong to separate combat round.
As long as you have specific maneuvers as abilities and improvise is just one more action that takes your one action from round we have this problem.
Supramic: Climing is listed in move part. While swining is listed as improvise action. I think it is because you can climb a ladder, etc with weapon in hand, can try to fight, etc. to some extend, but when you need your acrobatics skills, focus on things, try to keep balance, need solid grab on things so no sword in hand... That is different. But we can't know for sure.
Enerla. I think I understand what you are getting at. You want players to have the freedom to come up with whatever seems a natural maneuver and then allow the entirety of that maneuver to implemented as an action in game.
For example, the swinging chandelier action.
I would include the movement, the athletic/acrobatic action, the resulting impact from the collision, and a follow-up attack against the vulnerable foe before they have time to react (stand up and defend).
Theatrically, it makes perfect sense. Sounds like a great idea and is in the spirit of roleplay and adventure.
In D&D, it really comes down to the DM and game structure. Does he want to reward the player for coming up with a clever tactic, knowing full well that to do so can bend the structure of the rules a tad? Individual DMs will rule on this at their own discretion.
Personally, I would allow it but with the caveat that it will come with a series of difficult DCs to enact. A few good rolls, and you have a spectacular maneuver that will be memorable. Or perhaps a few bad ones and you have disasterous failure that everyone will get a good chuckle from.
D&D doesn't have to be limited by the hard structure that is its core. In fact, I am certain that (if it's not there already), the DMs guide will give a good section on how to adjudicate non-standard actions so that you don't have to deny players their attempts at being creative, you just need to make sure it says within reasonable bounds for game balance.
It doesn't have to be so black-and-white as you present it. The sky is not, in fact, falling, because you can't find a way to make use of Improvise yourself. A lot of clever DMs will be able to reward creative players who think out of the box without having to have every possibility included in the game. And do so without ruining immersion or game balance.
Theatrically, it makes perfect sense. Sounds like a great idea and is in the spirit of roleplay and adventure.
In D&D, it really comes down to the DM and game structure.
We agree on both counts. But lets see 3 conclusions to this.
As I said we test the game, not the DM, so it should be only determined by the game structure for now. In a normal game I would allow things, but now I shouldn't.
Such things worked in game structure well in early D&D and AD&D edition and each step was one step closer to this goal. Trying to achieve this was iconic element of D&D and this is why we treat D&D a roleplaying game, and this is why we seen D&D and AD&D the leading roleplaying game, because it tried to be one step ahead of competition and several step ahead of video games in this area. Even in game structure.
If D&D Next fails to support this by its structure, rules and the social contract that is built around the rules, but I seek exactly these values, then D&D Next isn't the best choice for me. In fact while I can compare other games about how much they support these values and this aproach, D&D as it doesn't realy support this with its structure will be among the worst choices.
This is why I say my problem is with structure... And this is why I don't praise individual changes now, even if some of them are a big step in a good direction.
