D&D 5E The Magical Martial

[RainOnTheSun]

I'm not up to date with D&D 5.5E or Now or Next or whatever it's called, but is there anything like the Champion fighter subclass in it? If it were implemented well, it seems like it would have been the solution to a lot of this: the fighter either trains to master a bunch of combat techniques, trains to learn magic, or trains to be impossibly strong.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thing is I get that there cannot be rules that cover every possible situation, but there can be benchmarks that help the GM to extrapolate consistently. And some situations are not actually that nuanced, like jumping which this was originally about. Like the rules give you a jump distance, and then say you can increase it with an athletics check. But do not say what DC and how much. Why? This is not a nuanced situation that requires giving the GM a lot of leeway, it is very simple situation that just requires we have some concrete numbers.

Really? You need exact numbers for jumping? I have played for 10 years and there was never a situation where I needed exact numbers. Usually my description is not that precise. It usually boils down to: how far it is across the chasm? About 10 ft. Across. I have a jump distance of 9ft. Can I jump over it?
Yeah, after looking for a bit you find a slightly narrower part. There you can do it.
Or: yeah. You can try. It is an easy check. Go.

Or: the chasm is 15 ft wide. My jump distance is only 9ft. Can I try it anyway?
Yes. But it is a hard check that involves a serious risk of falling. But with enough space to run you could be able to do it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thing is I get that there cannot be rules that cover every possible situation, but there can be benchmarks that help the GM to extrapolate consistently. And some situations are not actually that nuanced, like jumping which this was originally about. Like the rules give you a jump distance, and then say you can increase it with an athletics check. But do not say what DC and how much. Why? This is not a nuanced situation that requires giving the GM a lot of leeway, it is very simple situation that just requires we have some concrete numbers.

Presumably it’s because of this very conversation. Some want martials to be power jumping superheroes and others want them to be lotr characters.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Fairness WAS lost.

Many DMs suck at combat adjudication.
Many DMs suck at combat role fairness.
Many DMs suck a matching adjudication to the game time and style.

Yes. But at no point did arguing about a line on the battlefield help. Other guidelines how to play fair with the players. That your goal is not to kill them but making the game fun for everyone.

Yes we had unfair DM's in AD&D. But the illusion of fairness presented by putting pieces on a battlemap only led to DM's just making encounters harder by default what ultimately led to an ugly arm's race.

This is even more important in RPGs where the gap between the good and bad are close and when the dice are swingy.

The approach remains wrong.

It's like the "Flanking is advantage" rule or "roll a Check for advantage " rule. That's major choices for a DM to allow that can go BAD if made without care.

Of course. I don't see how that relates to my post.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Really? You need exact numbers for jumping? I have played for 10 years and there was never a situation where I needed exact numbers. Usually my description is not that precise. It usually boils down to: how far it is across the chasm? About 10 ft. Across. I have a jump distance of 9ft. Can I jump over it?
Yeah, after looking for a bit you find a slightly narrower part. There you can do it.
Or: yeah. You can try. It is an easy check. Go.

Or: the chasm is 15 ft wide. My jump distance is only 9ft. Can I try it anyway?
Yes. But it is a hard check that involves a serious risk of falling. But with enough space to run you could be able to do it.

I mean I can make this up, but I shouldn't have to. Why not just write the bloody thing in the book? They already wrote that you can increase the distance by a check, give the actual numbers too! And having them in writing helps with being consistent. Will you remember the next time that exceeding the jump distance by six feet was a DC 20 check?

Like I can invent ACs for the enemies too, yet MM actually lists them. Controversial opinion, but rulebooks we pay for should actually provide the rules. And yes, they can't be exhaustive and GM needs to make rulings, but providing rules for simple things and benchmark that help the GM extrapolate consistently are a good thing. And of course it makes things more newbie friendly. A lot of us here have decades of experience, but there are people who pick up these books as their first game, and "just figure it out" is not helpful advice for a person in such a situation.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Presumably it’s because of this very conversation. Some want martials to be power jumping superheroes and others want them to be lotr characters.

And yet we have 90 pages of spell definitions..

 

[Minigiant]

. But at no point did arguing about a line on the battlefield help. Other guidelines how to play fair with the players. That your goal is not to kill them but making the game fun for everyone.

Yes we had unfair DM's in AD&D. But the illusion of fairness presented by putting pieces on a battlemap only led to DM's just making encounters harder by default what ultimately led to an ugly arm's race.

However the lack of guidance resulted in consistency that created the "rules for everything" approached of 2 editions. And what's causing it to come back.

And what's the source of this topic.

Because D&D doesn't have a source IP that all fans can look to for imagination. It has thousands. Thus inconsistency.

 

[FrogReaver]

And yet we have 90 pages of spell definitions..

This response doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I mean I can make this up, but I shouldn't have to. Why not just write the bloody thing in the book? They already wrote that you can increase the distance by a check, give the actual numbers too! And having them in writing helps with being consistent. Will you remember the next time that exceeding the jump distance by six feet was a DC 20 check?

You don't grasp the problem. Since it is the DM who decides the exact wideness of the chasm, probably by looking into a list how far it needs to be for a certain check, why go thorough all those hoops and just decide for a check and tell the players that the chasm is a bit too wide to easily jump across.

If one player tells me his character is exceptional at jumping, why should I tell them ah, i see, you can jump exactly 19 ft. But too sad, my chasm is exactly 20 ft across. So your extraordinary ability is not helpful.

Like I can invent ACs for the enemies too, yet MM actually lists them. Controversial opinion, but rulebooks we pay for should actually provide the rules.

Different thing. But if you want to play that game: the DM can just decide the AC. Increase dex of the monster, change the worn armor etc.

And yes, they can't be exhaustive and GM needs to make rulings, but providing rules for simple things and benchmark that help the GM extrapolate consistently are a good thing.

I don't mind some DCs. Xanathar's guide has some DCs for tool uses. That is useful.

And of course it makes things more newbie friendly.

If those examples are useful and have a good range. What I wish for is having some typical applications for a skill listed for each DC:

Lets mak an example:
Athletics:
DC 5: climb a ladder at fast pace, swim in a quiet lake without clothes.
DC 10: swim in a stream, jump on a small table.

And so on.
So instead of making an exhaustive list of tasks with DC's I'd like it to be sorted by DC and some examples so a DM can get a feeling for probabilities... most DM's make every check on step too hard.
Maybe have a big box with an explanation why making checks too hard sucks. How it leads to powergaming and so on.

A lot of us here have decades of experience,

... and still they make the same errors over and over again...

but there are people who pick up these books as their first game, and "just figure it out" is not helpful advice for a person in such a situation.

Which I never said that it should be that way. But giving 100 tables to look up useless DC's is not helpful either.

It is more helpful to adress DC's to checls on the fly based on the felt difficulty. Which is always very circumstantial.
And it is more helpful to teach them not to describe surroundings in exact numbers. Big room, small hall, a wide chasm...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

However the lack of guidance resulted in consistency that created the "rules for everything" approached of 2 editions. And what's causing it to come back.

There can be a healthy middle ground?

And what's the source of this topic.

??

Because D&D doesn't have a source IP that all fans can look to for imagination. It has thousands. Thus inconsistency.

??