As per the rogue getting a sandwich. He should have been thinking of a way to break the stalemate. IF you have two sides just shooting arrows, you have a battle of attrition going on. You might kill the goblins but you will take damage as well. The tools are already there, just need to try and use them.
Right, he could've attacked with his sling too. And it might have had a bit of difference. What I mean by stalemate was that the Cleric of Moradin and the Kobold Chieftan were in the doorway. Neither could let their troops in to help the battle. Sure, with some heavy doeses of improvisation, things might have been different, but that's just not something my group likes doing. And that's really the crux of the matter, they're not fans of making up stuff on the fly. Some people love this, allowing them the free-form to do practially whatever they can imagine and by asking the DM if it's possible, they do it. Others like a more subset of skills, rules, and mechanics that helps further their inspirations. Both are fine ways of playing, yet neither really have a place at the other's table.
Why I don't personally like Improv style games is that it's just too reliant on DM moods. That and the rules can change based on each individual's perception of the situation. Lets take something simple for an example; Bull Rushing a Kobold off a cliff.
DM 1 to Player: "I see your Strength score is twice that of the Kobolds. You can Bull Rush him off the cliff with no roll" = Auto-success.
DM 2 to Player: "Move into the monsters square and make a Strength vs. Strength Contest. If you win, you push him 5-ft." = Simple mechanic involving the same score.
DM 3 to Player: "Move into the monsters square but if you Charge (ie. move 10 feet), you gain Advantage with your Roll. Make a Strength vs. either the Kobolds' Strength or Dexterity score (which ever's higher). If you win, you push him. If you loose, you remain in the spot adjacent to the Kobold. A win of 5 or more pushes the Kobold an additional 5-ft. If you win by 10 or more, you knock him prone. If you fail by 5 or more, you fall prone. If you fail by 10 or more, you miss and go over the ledge". = Difficlut yet precise mechanics
DM 4 to Player: "Move and attack the Kobold. If you hit, make a Strength vs. Strength Contest with Advantage. If you succeed, he is knocked off the ledge." = varied mechanics based on attack.
DM 5 to Player: "Move and attack the Kobold. If you hit, he makes a Strength saving throw DC = 5 + damage done or is knocked off." = Uses a Saving Throw mechanic.
This is just ONE situation that can have huge degrees of complexity and variables. And I'd say that these are all within the options presented in DDN. Perhaps you like one but HATE the others. Or maybe you hate all of them. It doesn't matter because what the DM rules is absolute. There is no basis except "Use your imagination, hope to have a understanding and clear-headed DM, and make sure it meets very simple parameters". I just don't like this free-form style of gaming.
Doing something is far better than doing nothing. I'm interested in why the DM is telling the players the DC of the checks. That seems a bit odd. Maybe you did not mean to included. There's alot of hand holding in the options. I'd rather the players think it out but I would have asked periodically "what would your character do?"
I will agree that DND Next is much more free-form than 4e. By much more, I mean by more than a factor of 10x. I personally think it is a huge improvement over 4e. I was surprised after the release of some of the board games, Wizards didn't take the DM out of 4e and replaced him/her with monster reaction tables and cards.
It ties into the 4e mentality of everything given to the player. It's quite clear that it will not be the option here; players will have to work at solving problems. There was a recent article by Rodney Thompson (I think about Bounded Acc). The most interesting thing was about a lvl1 character versus a dragon. Alone he wouldn't have been able to kill it but getting a whole town together with bows, there might be a chance.
Here's a good analogy. Yet's say a DM gave the players the title of hero at level 1. Heroism is something that is earned through action. Just giving the word 'hero' away ultimately cheapens it. I, for one, do not want to see the word 'hero' changed into a shallow representation of its former self.
The DM in 5E can be replaced by cards in a similar way:
Card #1: Happy DM, the DM is happy you brought drinks or snacks when you improvise choose your highest ability score. The DC is easy. (happy) Card #2: The DM just broke up with their boyfriend/girlfriend when improvising choose your mid line skill and use a moderate DC (apathy) Card #3: Your constant bypassing of his plot and story have made the DM annoyed with you. Your next improvised action is at the hardest DC you can possibly manage to roll. Pick your worst three abilities, those are the checks required. (anger)
You're forgetting one.
Card #4: You slept with the girl the DM was going to ask out. After the next D6 rounds, the ground opens up and you die.
For me the issue is that a level 10 fighter plays like a level 1 fighter (he's better at what he's doing, but the monsters are better too, so it doesn't feel different).
With the new 'bounded accuracy' rules, the hope is that this won't be the case. As the fighter gets better, the world around him doesn't get harder just to compensate. Higher level enemies will have more hit points, but won't be sporting an AC of 30+ just because of level.
I'd like to see a mechanic like bonus actions increasing with level. A fighter who can use an action to gain advantage, attack twice, and then hustle to another enemy would be a monster in combat.
For me the issue is that a level 10 fighter plays like a level 1 fighter (he's better at what he's doing, but the monsters are better too, so it doesn't feel different).
With the new 'bounded accuracy' rules, the hope is that this won't be the case. As the fighter gets better, the world around him doesn't get harder just to compensate. Higher level enemies will have more hit points, but won't be sporting an AC of 30+ just because of level.
I like this idea they're going with. Lets just hope that the Fighter gets benefits that get better with level that can scale well.
I'd like to see a mechanic like bonus actions increasing with level. A fighter who can use an action to gain advantage, attack twice, and then hustle to another enemy would be a monster in combat.
Agreed. What I want to see is the Fighter Surge thingy (the 2nd level ability) get bumped to 2/encounter instead of twice per day. If they're going to make him a murdering machine, at least do it well. If the ability is usable 2/encounter (or battle for people who hate 4E terminology) then It's FAR more incentive to perfom Improvisation Actions (disarm, trip, knock prone, bull rush, grapple, etc...) AND be able to hit in the same turn. Daily action shouldn't be so bland as "one additional action! YaY!" I need more.
A couple things, and a funny story at the end here.
I notice that some of the earlier comments revolve around how much they fel this is about "DM Moods' and willingness to allow things that you come up with in a more free form environment like 5E (and, basically, every version of DnD EXCEPT 4E).
Here's the thing. DM's are fairly consistent at their own tables. Players learn what that DM allows and how he feels about certain areas of the game. The ones who can live with it and stay become accustomed to that and act accordingly (in the end).
So book or no book, if you do something the DM doesn't feel makes sense/should be allowed it wont work anyways. But if the book SAYS something doesn't work, you, the player have nowhere to go and may not even TRY something wacky, knowing as you do the book forbids it.
But what if...we designed the game so that the DM could just ALLOW you to do stuff? What if the door were more open than closed? what if WOTC describes, later on, stuff you can do, without saying what it CAN'T do? let the DM decide?
By doing this, the players are going to find out that some things are going to work they never could try before!
Famous example. DM was running us in a section of dungeon and a troll blocks the Way. Our DM is...not...extremely good with the rules nor balancing encounters. We were deat meat. To give you some idea, we were playing 3.5 and he was busily referencing a 1E monster manual during the game and he clearly didn't know that Lightning bolts no longer "bounce back" at you etc....
So anyways, at some point, most of the players had just sigh'd and come to accept that this guy was playing in the Theatre of the Mind from a 1E perspective anyways. So I decided that I would slip behind the troll, get on all four and let the fighter push the troll over me and send it tumbling down the stairs, like in 3rd grade.
A fellow player who was a rules monger just about came out of his skin telling us how "dumb" we were for even trying this, that I would be considered prone and vulnerable, that the Fighter didn't have improved bullrish and the troll would only move 5 ft accoring to the bull rush rules at best, not fall down the stairs blah blah blah... the point was we said screw it and did it anyways and it worked because it made sense to the DM that it could work. Mechanics be damned, it was fun and we went with it and down went the troll and bawoosh went the oil and fire onto him while down there. =)
I don't give a rip whether we broke 5 rules or not, it was a great story and it was fun to tell afterwards as you can see.
Stuff like this needs to happen. More. A lot. And it will. I think trusting our DM isn't something the 4E and even 3.X rules require of us or allow of us. in 5E perhaps that will change.
A couple things, and a funny story at the end here.
I notice that some of the earlier comments revolve around how much they fel this is about "DM Moods' and willingness to allow things that you come up with in a more free form environment like 5E (and, basically, every version of DnD EXCEPT 4E).
Here's the thing. DM's are fairly consistent at their own tables. Players learn what that DM allows and how he feels about certain areas of the game. The ones who can live with it and stay become accustomed to that and act accordingly (in the end).
So book or no book, if you do something the DM doesn't feel makes sense/should be allowed it wont work anyways. But if the book SAYS something doesn't work, you, the player have nowhere to go and may not even TRY something wacky, knowing as you do the book forbids it.
But what if...we designed the game so that the DM could just ALLOW you to do stuff? What if the door were more open than closed? what if WOTC describes, later on, stuff you can do, without saying what it CAN'T do? let the DM decide?
By doing this, the players are going to find out that some things are going to work they never could try before!
Famous example. DM was running us in a section of dungeon and a troll blocks the Way. Our DM is...not...extremely good with the rules nor balancing encounters. We were deat meat. To give you some idea, we were playing 3.5 and he was busily referencing a 1E monster manual during the game and he clearly didn't know that Lightning bolts no longer "bounce back" at you etc....
So anyways, at some point, most of the players had just sigh'd and come to accept that this guy was playing in the Theatre of the Mind from a 1E perspective anyways. So I decided that I would slip behind the troll, get on all four and let the fighter push the troll over me and send it tumbling down the stairs, like in 3rd grade.
A fellow player who was a rules monger just about came out of his skin telling us how "dumb" we were for even trying this, that I would be considered prone and vulnerable, that the Fighter didn't have improved bullrish and the troll would only move 5 ft accoring to the bull rush rules at best, not fall down the stairs blah blah blah... the point was we said screw it and did it anyways and it worked because it made sense to the DM that it could work. Mechanics be damned, it was fun and we went with it and down went the troll and bawoosh went the oil and fire onto him while down there. =)
I don't give a rip whether we broke 5 rules or not, it was a great story and it was fun to tell afterwards as you can see.
Stuff like this needs to happen. More. A lot. And it will. I think trusting our DM isn't something the 4E and even 3.X rules require of us or allow of us. in 5E perhaps that will change.
That's no argument for a poor ruleset.
That's no arguement for anything.
What you do at your table is fine. But you can do it with a well-made and balanced ruleset just as well as with FATAL, if you really wanted to.
More codified rules mean more confdence in character concept.
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig.
Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.
A couple things, and a funny story at the end here.
I notice that some of the earlier comments revolve around how much they fel this is about "DM Moods' and willingness to allow things that you come up with in a more free form environment like 5E (and, basically, every version of DnD EXCEPT 4E).
Here's the thing. DM's are fairly consistent at their own tables. Players learn what that DM allows and how he feels about certain areas of the game. The ones who can live with it and stay become accustomed to that and act accordingly (in the end).
So book or no book, if you do something the DM doesn't feel makes sense/should be allowed it wont work anyways. But if the book SAYS something doesn't work, you, the player have nowhere to go and may not even TRY something wacky, knowing as you do the book forbids it.
With home groups, I doubt this will be a problem. Even as we switch out DMs at our table, we're all good friends so conflicts rarely come up and are resolved quickly. But what about going to another person's place? Or a scantioned event? Or the Mall (i reference this alot, but it's the closes place that does D&D stuff)? This is when consistancy within the rules works well. I don't know a DM from atom when I go to the Mall or perhaps I don't know much about the DM who's a friend of a friend. And then when you try stunts like the ones below you have absoutley no idea if he'll even allow it let alone how he'll rule it. I knew in v3.5 that a Bull Rush used a sub-set of rules. It wasn't hard and the grasp helped me plan my moves. With no grasp of the DM implemented rules, aside from asking which action is allowed, how do I go about doing stuff aside from Move and Attack? This then promotes the MMI-esque style. Because until you know the DM you have to generally ask if your actions are allowed and then figure out how to do it (which might also be totally different than the other 90% of the time you've done it before).
But what if...we designed the game so that the DM could just ALLOW you to do stuff? What if the door were more open than closed? what if WOTC describes, later on, stuff you can do, without saying what it CAN'T do? let the DM decide?
By doing this, the players are going to find out that some things are going to work they never could try before!
Famous example. DM was running us in a section of dungeon and a troll blocks the Way. Our DM is...not...extremely good with the rules nor balancing encounters. We were deat meat. To give you some idea, we were playing 3.5 and he was busily referencing a 1E monster manual during the game and he clearly didn't know that Lightning bolts no longer "bounce back" at you etc....
So anyways, at some point, most of the players had just sigh'd and come to accept that this guy was playing in the Theatre of the Mind from a 1E perspective anyways. So I decided that I would slip behind the troll, get on all four and let the fighter push the troll over me and send it tumbling down the stairs, like in 3rd grade.
A fellow player who was a rules monger just about came out of his skin telling us how "dumb" we were for even trying this, that I would be considered prone and vulnerable, that the Fighter didn't have improved bullrish and the troll would only move 5 ft accoring to the bull rush rules at best, not fall down the stairs blah blah blah... the point was we said screw it and did it anyways and it worked because it made sense to the DM that it could work. Mechanics be damned, it was fun and we went with it and down went the troll and bawoosh went the oil and fire onto him while down there. =)
I don't give a rip whether we broke 5 rules or not, it was a great story and it was fun to tell afterwards as you can see.
Stuff like this needs to happen. More. A lot. And it will. I think trusting our DM isn't something the 4E and even 3.X rules require of us or allow of us. in 5E perhaps that will change.
The games have already done this and have always promoted this stance, even as far back as when I played in the late stages of AD&D. In 3E and 4E, it's even further promoted by not even having rules for this stuff (mostly due to 4E). In your example (and it's something that I thought was great, thanks for sharing!) I would've allowed it easy in my campaign. Even using v3.5 rules, had the Troll not noticed the guy hide behind him (with a good Stealth/Hide check) and the Fighter Bull Rushed him I might not have made it automatic, but it sure would've negated any bonuses for the Troll being a Large creature and it probably would've worked in the PCs favor. Free form DMing outside the rules is FAR more acceptable to me (both as a Player and DM) than making up stuff as I go with no rules as a basis. If a DM goes off the rules-rail, the group can clearly see that and act accordingly. It's a whole different ballgame where there's no rails to begin with.
There is no need to argue "for" a poor ruleset when there is no poor ruleset in evidence, my friend. that is a non sequitor.
As for Concept... Umm...character concept doesn't COME from the rules. That's where this World of Warcraft generation went wrong.
Your "concept" isn't stats and race. It's who you were before you started adventuring, what drove you to learn your craft and what you've done up to and including session 1 that made you more than a commoner.
THAT'S what a concept is. You can play that concept with or without a bunch of rules.
And there will BE more rules. You can't be under the illusion that this is the final version. Did you know they haven't even gotten to making the magic item section yet, let alone finished the bestiary nor the spells? This thing is in flux my friend.
A wise man reserves judgement until he sees all the facts. You're doomsaying is not wisdom even if you turn out to be right in the end. for my part, I am advocatinig that everyone be a voice of reason instead of a voice of discord.
With home groups, I doubt this will be a problem. But what about going to another person's place or a scantioned event?
My answer: Organized play is something I pretty much find too ridiculous for words (having nothing to do with any edition really), but given that it exists and that you would indeed need to concern yourself with this I say this: Just ask him if you can attempt it. He'll say yes or no, just like your normal DM. And just like your normal DM, it won't be the end of the world if he says no. but most DM's really enjoy smart players who do interesting things. makes their lives less boring.
The games have already done this . If a DM goes off the rules-rail, the group can clearly see that and act accordingly. It's a whole different ballgame where there's no rails to begin with.
No rails...yet. If you notice what I said in my post is that we should encourage a set of rules that tells you what you can do... without telling you what it cant do.
Eample: Tripping. The rles for tripping should tell you how to do it and what the impact can be of doing it... without telling you its the only impact. That's an example. If ou trip, they go prone, have penalties and so forth, but what it doesn't tell you is that you can only trip under X or Y circumstance, using X or Y feat or with X or Y weapon. It just says you can do it, how to do it and what SOME of the consewquences might be.
Thats the open ended nature I am talking about. If I trip you in a small enough space, do you hit your head? If if the space is small, is tripping even possible? the rules could address those things...and shouldn't, other than to say that DM's may decide that tripping would be too difficult given the weapon or space to use it etc... Or he could rule that tripping in water is just too hard. And so on. but those would be DM calls, not systemic ones. Sure, common sense says the DM could certainly ALWAYS rule that tripping is too hard in water. We could write the rules to say so. But then... what abous snakes wrapping around? In short, leave the "can't" parts out.
With home groups, I doubt this will be a problem. But what about going to another person's place or a scantioned event?
My answer: Organized play is something I pretty much find too ridiculous for words (having nothing to do with any edition really), but given that it exists and that you would indeed need to concern yourself with this I say this: Just ask him if you can attempt it. He'll say yes or no, just like your normal DM. And just like your normal DM, it won't be the end of the world if he says no. but most DM's really enjoy smart players who do interesting things. makes their lives less boring.
Ok, but organized play definitly brings in a lot of new players and as such, gives a first impression. My first impression (late AD&D era) was that the game was too convoluted and the DM was strange. I later was able to understand that the DM was that sort.....power-tripping D-Bag. And I fear that these sort of people are the ones that run D&D games in public arenas and thus.....project that sort of D&D-elitis image. As for asking him, aren't we getting the the crux of the problem many are having? It shouldn't be a question of "Can I do X?" but "I did X, what happens?" Not sure if there's a lot of difference, but there is to me.
The games have already done this . If a DM goes off the rules-rail, the group can clearly see that and act accordingly. It's a whole different ballgame where there's no rails to begin with.
No rails...yet. If you notice what I said in my post is that we should encourage a set of rules that tells you what you can do... without telling you what it cant do.
Eample: Tripping. The rles for tripping should tell you how to do it and what the impact can be of doing it... without telling you its the only impact. That's an example. If ou trip, they go prone, have penalties and so forth, but what it doesn't tell you is that you can only trip under X or Y circumstance, using X or Y feat or with X or Y weapon. It just says you can do it, how to do it and what SOME of the consewquences might be.
Thats the open ended nature I am talking about. If I trip you in a small enough space, do you hit your head? If if the space is small, is tripping even possible? the rules could address those things...and shouldn't, other than to say that DM's may decide that tripping would be too difficult given the weapon or space to use it etc... Or he could rule that tripping in water is just too hard. And so on. but those would be DM calls, not systemic ones. Sure, common sense says the DM could certainly ALWAYS rule that tripping is too hard in water. We could write the rules to say so. But then... what abous snakes wrapping around? In short, leave the "can't" parts out.
I do hope we get more rails. I hope we see far more modular elements in the Core game. I hope the Fighter becomes more robust. I hope the Rogue obtains ways to get Advantage more. I hope for a LOT of things that DDN might become, but at the current phase I'm not impressed.
After 3 pages of sevety-odd posts or so I feel really silly bringing this up...but you DMed the playtest, right? I think you posted all this on the wrong forum.
