From improvise: "an action not detailed elsewhere"
Trip is detailed. Attack is detailed. Knock down is detailed. Improvise can only do what isn't detailed, but can't do what is detailed. See the difference?
Now lets see what happens.
You said about sneak attacks that we should ignore logic. Lets see an illogical game.
Since this swinging action does what "knock down" does, it isn't an improvise action, but a reflavoured / described knock down action. Nothing more, nothing less. How you moved distance isn't an issue, it is similar to jumping, and is well within limit. After all when you were on chandellier you were in attacking distance of your target, right?
The character doesn't have knock down, so she can't do it. Don't seek logic, we removed logic there.
But at this moment immersion is broken, as the player shouldn't think about what the character can do, but should think about what the system lets him to do.
The problem happens before the first jump part, flow of time isn't here.
You can use improvise action, drop on your foe. But as it is neither trip, nor attack, it doesn't do anything. And as your foe doesn't let you move in your square you are moved out of it. Ignore forces, ignore physics. You don't have knock down, and you already had your action this round.
If we want to keep physics and effects in the game we run into a problem because the improvise, attack and trip are separate described actions.
Now move away from how D&D sees things now. Make improvise the default, and it shouldn't be limited to what isn't described. But make trip, and simple attack examples. As you see the above action now works, but fighter just lost some advantage. What was once his class feature became an option for everyone. Ouch.
Now reword knock down a bit. "While everyone can try to knock an opponent down based on circumstances, but fighters who learn this maneuver are trained in an efficient way of doing it. Whenever they face a humanoid opponent they can knock him down..." And how knockdown game mechanic works can be inserted after.
What happens? Fighters can knock enemy down anytime they want. No extra test for swinging. They use normal weapons, don't get penalties, don't risk falling damage.
While our character can do it based on cicumstances and needs some extra test for swinging... They aren't trained in this way of fighting, so they get a penalty for it. Like if they wouldn't be proficient in a weapon, as they haven't learned how to use their own weight this way. If they hit the enemy it will cause damage from "falling" and knock him down. If they miss, they will collide anyway probably, but our resourceful character gets the falling damage.
I knew better... knew better... that trying to reason with you and give you more to think about. To expand possibility and try being open-minded as a DM.
I knew you'd rules lawyer me to death.
Yes, I concede that if you compartmentalize the chandelier action down, you can find pieces in it that are a part of some other action or ability in the game.
Pshaw, I say.
That's not in the spirit of roleplaying. It's not in the slightest bit encouraging of creativity.
And, of course, you didn't really bother to read my reply... just grab the rules, try to find some twist on the literally reading of them, and quote that as gospel.
What I actually said was that it I would be open-minded and accepting of the attempt by allowing it to be a series of DC checks. It's not a free knock down. No penalty free action. No lack of risk for so bold a maneuver.
Yes, I did say that with some good rolls, they might pull off a memorable action with cinematic flair. Or they might fail miserably, giving everyone a good chuckle.
More often than not, these complex improvisations don't go as planned. Sometimes with minor consequence, sometimes with major. But I reward the player by letting them try. And when it does work, they brag about it for days, if not weeks, months, or years. And even when it fails, it often spawns those "remember when" tales players laugh about and remember with fondness forever.
Maybe D&D will find a way to list every possible action, combination, and ruling so that you can always have a specific for the situation. Or maybe they'll throw out actions altogether, so you (as DM) can decide what's possible, improbably, or impossible yourself, and let you keep your 100% immersion going.
In the mean time, the rest of us are playing and having fun (well, except for me, who's continually expending energy replying to you... for some god unknown reason).
I know it is hard to understand: We are playtesting the rules. So we have to go by the rules.
What I would normally overlook in a game, I can't overlook in the playtest.
And it isn't the first time you are agressive and arrogant.
You don't consider ways to fix problems, ways to make the game fun for more people. You just attacking people for not liking the same things as you, and for actually playtesting the game.
I know it is hard to understand: We are playtesting the rules. So we have to go by the rules.
What I would normally overlook in a game, I can't overlook in the playtest.
You don't consider ways to fix problems, ways to make the game fun for more people. You just attacking people for not liking the same things as you, and for actually playtesting the game.
I think you are assuming I am not playtesting the rules. I am. I just interpret the rules differently than you.
I tried this before, and I will try again... not just for you, but for anyone who's considering Improvise Actions.
From How to Play, Page 10, Improvise: The only limits to the actions you can take are your imagination and your ability scores. When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible
Obviously, it's going to be important for them to expand upon that because it's too vague and lacking specifics for some people to use. The fact that I used it to allow a player to try a clever maneuver but you steadfastly refuse points out how differently the Improvise Action can be contrued.
Yes, there is a statement about "not covered by other actions", but I take that in regard to the list of actions presented.
Let me put it this way... suppose they give Rogues a new Scheme called Acrobat, and in it are features called Jump, Cat's Fall, and Balance. Will you then rule that because Rogues have a feature that allow them to jump that no one else can now jump as an improvised action? No one can fall and land of their feet? No one can try to walk across a narrow ledge because Rogues have that to themselves?
They need to clear this up, because I read Improvise as Actions not covered in this section of how to play. Just because a class has a knock down feature (which is automatic, by the way, not part of some difficult DC action), doesn't mean that someone else can't use a setting specific, clever improvisation, to accomplish the same thing with an Ability Check. The advantage the Fighter has is that it's not limited to that specific situation, it doesn't sacrifice their normal attack, and it doesn't come with a DC ability check.
So, yes, I am trying to fix the problem. Trying to show there is more than one way to read the rules. And trying to show the devs why they need to offer more clarity if they intend either one of us to be the correct way to interpret them.
Or maybe it's okay the way it is? Maybe all it boils down to is how a DM wants to play the game. I am obviously more open to allowance than you are. Nothing wrong or better or worse with either interpretation.
I know it is hard to understand: We are playtesting the rules. So we have to go by the rules.
What I would normally overlook in a game, I can't overlook in the playtest.
You don't consider ways to fix problems, ways to make the game fun for more people. You just attacking people for not liking the same things as you, and for actually playtesting the game.
I think you are assuming I am not playtesting the rules. I am. I just interpret the rules differently than you.
I tried this before, and I will try again... not just for you, but for anyone who's considering Improvise Actions.
From How to Play, Page 10, Improvise: The only limits to the actions you can take are your imagination and your ability scores. When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible
Obviously, it's going to be important for them to expand upon that because it's too vague and lacking specifics for some people to use. The fact that I used it to allow a player to try a clever maneuver but you steadfastly refuse points out how differently the Improvise Action can be contrued.
Yes, there is a statement about "not covered by other actions", but I take that in regard to the list of actions presented.
Let me put it this way... suppose they give Rogues a new Scheme called Acrobat, and in it are features called Jump, Cat's Fall, and Balance. Will you then rule that because Rogues have a feature that allow them to jump that no one else can now jump as an improvised action? No one can fall and land of their feet? No one can try to walk across a narrow ledge because Rogues have that to themselves?
They need to clear this up, because I read Improvise as Actions not covered in this section of how to play. Just because a class has a knock down feature (which is automatic, by the way, not part of some difficult DC action), doesn't mean that someone else can't use a setting specific, clever improvisation, to accomplish the same thing with an Ability Check. The advantage the Fighter has is that it's not limited to that specific situation, it doesn't sacrifice their normal attack, and it doesn't come with a DC ability check.
So, yes, I am trying to fix the problem. Trying to show there is more than one way to read the rules. And trying to show the devs why they need to offer more clarity if they intend either one of us to be the correct way to interpret them.
Or maybe it's okay the way it is? Maybe all it boils down to is how a DM wants to play the game. I am obviously more open to allowance than you are. Nothing wrong or better or worse with either interpretation.
I like this reasoning. Although I liked DMing 4e (and I've played and DMd every edition way back from the late 70s...I'm getting old), one thing I found most unsettling was that powers granted to the PCs (each of which becomes a specific rule) had elements that included push, knockdown, move/action/move, etc. When I tried to encourage players to improvise, and when I improvised, often my ruling would take the place of an existing power, which basically invalidated the need for the power. Also, because there were so many powers, eventually as DM, there were too many rules to internalize in order to keep improvisation fair and balanced. It locked us into a more prescribed way of playing, no doubt.
I really like and often use ability checks and contests to let the players try to do what they want to try to do. Sometimes they succeed...sometimes they fail and I get to throw a monkey wrench into their plans. Either way, it makes it easier to keep the story of the campaign flowing.
Yes, there is a statement about "not covered by other actions", but I take that in regard to the list of actions presented.
Let me put it this way... suppose they give Rogues a new Scheme called Acrobat, and in it are features called Jump, Cat's Fall, and Balance. Will you then rule that because Rogues have a feature that allow them to jump that no one else can now jump as an improvised action? No one can fall and land of their feet? No one can try to walk across a narrow ledge because Rogues have that to themselves?
1st: They say not described elsewhere in rules
2nd: attack and trip are described in action, so even if knockdown isn't removed it should be
3rd: This is why I have the issue with the system as it is now. As they define actions by results and not by means, and in one way it is hard to achieve a result, they turn it into an action. From that point you can't get that and anything more with improvise since that is a described action. Even if it was done before. Even if the same character done it a week ago. Even if the situation would turn that the most logical and perfectly easy to do so.
This issue came up when we analyzed the rules first. So we tried a test to see how quickly a group of players would run into it. And after test sessions with multiple DM and players used a phpESP based survey to see how annoying the rules are.
This is why I say current action system of D&D Next is broken. Guess why I suggested that class features should just turn thing easier (including turn them to auto success)? Why I said any predefined action should be an example and should be also defined by means so not be a limitation for improvise?
You suggest to ignore a rule and overrule it, when the same fix can be applied to the rule, so the book will have the working version.
Not trying to be argumentative... but you are wrong.. here's exactly what it says:
How to Play, Page 10, Improvise (first paragraph): Your ability scores allow you to do all kinds of things not covered by the other actions in this section
I am sorry, En, but you didn't read Improvise correctly. It clearly states that its about actions not "in this section", meaning the Actions section of How to Play.
I'll agree that, as written, it is a bit vague and certianly leaves a lot in the DM's lap to determine what to do with it... and novice DMs might not always understand the "Yes, but..." style of replying. Let's face it, though, there's always going to be a bit of an onus on DMs to be adaptable and creative when it comes to dealing with non-standard or imaginative situations.
And just gone by earlier quotes when I used them as reference here.
But the difference doesn't matter, as we speak about problems because improvise would duplicate actions already described in that chapter
The actions describe in that section are as follows:
Attack, Cast a Spell, Coup de Grace, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Hustle, Improvise, Ready an Action, Search, and Use an Item.
Swinging from a chandelier to try to bull-rush an enemy, knocking them down, really isn't covered at all in that section. Thus, Improvise and coming up with a ruling on how it could be implemented.
They could include examples (they will in a full release book), and that would help, but in this limited time playtest, it's not as necessary. They probably get all the feedback they need from listening to how people have used Improvise and if it is suitable to what they want it to achieve.
I could be wrong, but I would bet I am not, when I say that they want Improvise to reward the imaginative, clever player. They want DMs like me coming up with ways to give players a chance to pull off something cinematic and exciting. The don't want actions to be restrictive but inclusive.
Again, I go back to what I suggested almost from the start... give it a chance. Stop trying to say no and just give yes a shot. Let your players do something as allowed in the rules, not try to find ways to justify saying no.
Because I have yet to see anything direct from the PDFs that makes me think, oh, Enerla's right, they really don't want players to be able to do more than exactly what's on their character sheet. And please, please, please, don't take that as a personal attack. Every time you say "They say not described elsewhere in rules" or "I just compared to attack and trip actions", I respect your input enough to actually go into the PDFs and look for what you are talking about.
And you know what? I haven't found anything to indicate that you have it right. There's no place it says "no described elsewhere in rules." There's no Trip and Attack Actions in the Action in Combat section (just Attack).
I am not disagreeing with you, I am disagreeing with your statements because I can't find a basis for them.
