classes and niche protection

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Not a fan of a lot of 4e's mechanics, particularly 'marking'
We really liked that one. If you consider one of the main functions of a fighter to be stopping people getting at the squishies behind them, then marking gave a mechanical way of achieving this.
 
3e felt more like an MMO to me, with it's tropes.

I dunno. 4E sorta got ported over to the Neverwinter MMO, where it seems to play pretty well.i don’t like 3.5 either, but I think you’re in the minority in this POV. The power names alone made it seem video gamey to me.
 
Never played 3e or 4e but 'use once a day' special abilities for classes existed in earlier editions didn't they?
I think at least part of the issue was a contingent of gamers not liking things to be too clear or implicit and, particularly in the 3.x crowd, finding cool options that work well together and feel like cheating. I remember getting in an argument with one poster about using keywords for monsters in the MM - for instance, Skeleton (Undead, humanoid), with me arguing this would make the monster easier to use at the table and him arguing that this took mystery away from the monster compared to reading it's list of special abilities.

"Use once a day", cool and good, "daily ability:" MMO trash.

But frankly, I like clarity and explicitness.
 
Prior to 4e most abilities with an x/day mechanism were supernatural in some way or other. Given that Vancian magic is x/day on steroids I guess this fits the mental model of D&D.

When the questions is: ‘why can my skilled fighter only attempt this combat manoeuvre once per day?’ that requires a different kind of rationalisation. I could deal with it, some people couldn’t.
 
You are just mincing words and looking for a fight. Go bug someone else.

Your sole argument is that it must exist because lots of people think so? I'm defending my opinion, not looking for a fight, but if I were, fighting with you would be a complete waste of time. And you don't get to declare me wrong and then demand that I not reply; you are welcome to ignore me, though, but instead you chose to post the above.

Prior to 4e most abilities with an x/day mechanism were supernatural in some way or other. Given that Vancian magic is x/day on steroids I guess this fits the mental model of D&D.

When the questions is: ‘why can my skilled fighter only attempt this combat manoeuvre once per day?’ that requires a different kind of rationalisation. I could deal with it, some people couldn’t.

This is an excellent point. But I don't think it's what people who say "dissociative mechanic" usually mean, even if some are just using a fancy word like "dissociative" to disguise personal preference as objective truth.

But I'm going to comment further, as promised, not as a reply to Faylar Faylar or to dbm dbm but just to elaborate on my own thoughts. Feel free to ignore this post.

From the link to Justin Alexander's website,
An associated mechanic is one which has a connection to the game world. A dissociated mechanic is one which is disconnected from the game world.

OK, a rule for how the cost of the snacks for game night is divided is not connected to the game world, but I don't think anyone would call that a mechanic of any sort; mechanics should affect the game world. Any mechanic that affects the game world is connected to the game world, so that's pretty clearly not a complete definition (or not a useful one). But the example given subsequently goes further:
The mechanic is dissociated because the decision made by the player cannot be equated to a decision made by the character.

I gather that without a decision by the player that is a decision by the character, a mechanic would not be dissociated; this is not quite "is the mechanic hard to rationalize?" which applies to mechanics without decisions. The usual reason given why this decision mismatch is bad is that it prevents proper role-playing, but the decision to role-play or not is on the players, who shouldn't blame mechanics for their failure to role-play.

In real life, people imagine all sorts of superstitions; e.g., "I won't get a car wash this morning, because then it will rain and spoil this afternoon's picnic." If a character did this because this was the actual game mechanic, would you think it a dissociative mechanic? The real world works in a number of strange ways, people incorrectly believe that it is both more and less strange than it is, and everyone just deals with it.

If you read this far and don't agree, maybe give me some better examples and we can discuss further.
 
I dunno. 4E sorta got ported over to the Neverwinter MMO, where it seems to play pretty well.i don’t like 3.5 either, but I think you’re in the minority in this POV. The power names alone made it seem video gamey to me.
And DDO (From Turbine) was based off Ebberon and 3.x, you're point?
 
Not sure if I would agree with that part about 4e paving the way for 5e. I think 5e goes back to the basics but also utilizes modern game making trends. I don't actually find it too radical unless you compare it to 3x, but not the earlier editions.
Eh, the idea that 5e is older D&D with some newisms is a illusion that far too many people buy into.
It’s really 4e with some oldisms.
 
Your sole argument is that it must exist because lots of people think so? I'm defending my opinion, not looking for a fight, but if I were, fighting with you would be a complete waste of time. And you don't get to declare me wrong and then demand that I not reply; you are welcome to ignore me, though, but instead you chose to post the above.



This is an excellent point. But I don't think it's what people who say "dissociative mechanic" usually mean, even if some are just using a fancy word like "dissociative" to disguise personal preference as objective truth.

But I'm going to comment further, as promised, not as a reply to Faylar Faylar or to dbm dbm but just to elaborate on my own thoughts. Feel free to ignore this post.

From the link to Justin Alexander's website,


OK, a rule for how the cost of the snacks for game night is divided is not connected to the game world, but I don't think anyone would call that a mechanic of any sort; mechanics should affect the game world. Any mechanic that affects the game world is connected to the game world, so that's pretty clearly not a complete definition (or not a useful one). But the example given subsequently goes further:


I gather that without a decision by the player that is a decision by the character, a mechanic would not be dissociated; this is not quite "is the mechanic hard to rationalize?" which applies to mechanics without decisions. The usual reason given why this decision mismatch is bad is that it prevents proper role-playing, but the decision to role-play or not is on the players, who shouldn't blame mechanics for their failure to role-play.

In real life, people imagine all sorts of superstitions; e.g., "I won't get a car wash this morning, because then it will rain and spoil this afternoon's picnic." If a character did this because this was the actual game mechanic, would you think it a dissociative mechanic? The real world works in a number of strange ways, people incorrectly believe that it is both more and less strange than it is, and everyone just deals with it.

If you read this far and don't agree, maybe give me some better examples and we can discuss further.

The problem is, you’re not talking about game mechanics at all, you’re making up theoreticals in real life and using those as arguments against a concept about game mechanics instead of actually using game mechanics. Why?
Here’s a concrete example straight from Justin’s essay...

“For example, consider a football game in which a character has the One-Handed Catch ability: Once per game they can make an amazing one-handed catch, granting them a +4 bonus to that catch attempt.

The mechanic is dissociated because the decision made by the player cannot be equated to a decision made by the character. No player, after making an amazing one-handed catch, thinks to themselves, “Wow! I won’t be able to do that again until the next game!” Nor do they think to themselves, “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today.”

On the other hand, when a player decides to cast a fireball spell that decision isdirectly equated to the character’s decision to cast a fireball. (The character, like the player, knows that they have only prepared a single fireball spell. So the decision to expend that limited resource – and the consequences for doing so – are understood by both character and player.)
Clear and perfectly defined.
A magic-user can only cast a spell x times a day, because that is how the magic system works and both character and player know it.
A fighter being able to make a particular fighting move x times a day makes no sense from the point of view of the character, just like the “one-handed catch” example. The decision to do this completely non-magical move 2/day is completely divorced from the context of the setting, it’s solely a player decision, to provide tactical and strategic resource management, and as such is dissociated from the character.

Really just read the essay.
 
M Magister there is no possible way that you can be this obtuse without just spoiling for a fight.
We are talking a game concept not Santa Claus or a physical object.
You are right... There is no reason to argue with you. I put you on ignore when I met you over the same BS and took you off against my better judgement.
Thanks for reinforcing why I did in the first place.
Bye.
 
Eh, the idea that 5e is older D&D with some newisms is a illusion that far too many people buy into.
It’s really 4e with some oldisms.

I tried 4e and found it not to my tastes so I skipped it after. It didnt have the right chemistry for me.
You could be right but for me it plays more like a polished Rules Cyclopedia game.
 
To my mind, the defining features of 4e were:
  • ‘Powers for everyone’: All abilities followed the same, resource management structure
  • Healing surges: As long as you had five minutes and weren’t out of surges you would be back to full HP after every fight.
I was going to argue that 5e doesn’t follow that structure, but it pretty much does with three modifications:
  • A short rest is 30 minutes, not 5, so less of a sure thing after pretty much every fight
  • Healing surges are less potent
  • Different classes have different mixes of at will / short rest / long rest powers, so aren’t uniform in the way that abilities were in 4e.
So, whilst I was thinking that 5e had more in common with 3e I find my self agreeing with CRKrueger CRKrueger that it’s 4e with the dial turned down.
 
Classes that are more than optional descriptions / templates: I don't like.

Niche protection: I don't like. If you want to be the best at something, go be the best at it (or die trying). Don't expect the game / universe / GM to warp itself to highlight your specialness.
Catching up my peanut gallery comments with the threat content:

Powers for everyone: I don't like.
Quick easy healing of all wounds: I don't like.
Mundane physical abilities that can only be used x times per day: I don't like.
 
Huh, I had not read that one from Justin. it's quite good. It hits on some points that have bothered me over the years, not the least of which is my dislike of fighters having 1/day powers, but not having any problems with wizards having them.

I don't care about this santa claus business. I liked 4e, but I always thought of it more of a skirmish game with some associated (hah!) roleplaying between combats :smile:

But frankly, I like clarity and explicitness.
My heterosexual life partner and player in my game, myself, and you all agree. We have been discussing that this was an important and useful part of 4e especially. I actually like my games with keywords in different fonts and capitalized or camelCase so it is clear that it has a specific meaning.
We really liked that one. If you consider one of the main functions of a fighter to be stopping people getting at the squishies behind them, then marking gave a mechanical way of achieving this.
the only thing i dislike about marking is that it is special to the fighter without a lot of explanation.
 
I dunno. 4E sorta got ported over to the Neverwinter MMO, where it seems to play pretty well.i don’t like 3.5 either, but I think you’re in the minority in this POV.
4e would have made for a killer strategy-RPG, because if we must compare it to any video game, it's closest to being Guild Wars : Tabletop Edition. Sadly it never got that chance.
 
Short rests are an hour, not 30 minutes. The only healing in 5e that i'm ambivalent about is getting all your hit points back after a long rest. I would prefer hit dice being used to heal and the actual 'healing' you get from a long rest is half your level in hit dice back - which you can then use/not use in healing naturally.
 
I've read enough stories about assassins (which tend to fit that 'skill monkey' archetype) for me to accept that as a third 'tier' of adventuring. Taurus of Nemedia is like the archetype, he relies on his cunning and skill, while Conan uses his raw physicality.

I agree with your assessment, which is why I consider Conan a fighter who stole things in D&D, not a thief. YMMV
 
The problem is, you’re not talking about game mechanics at all, you’re making up theoreticals in real life and using those as arguments against a concept about game mechanics instead of actually using game mechanics. Why?

I argue that dissociated is a meaningless distinction; since I can't list every possible example, anything I suggest would be viewed as cherry picking, so if someone wants a discussion, they should provide their best examples. My examples are aimed at showing that people in real life make decisions based on things they don't understand or understand incorrectly, so why shouldn't that situation be tolerated in the game world?

Here’s a concrete example straight from Justin’s essay...

Apparently you missed the part of my post where I alluded to this example in the interests of getting a more accurate definition. I judged the example itself not worthwhile, because it's a terrible mechanic all on its own.

"The mechanic is dissociated because the decision made by the player cannot be equated to a decision made by the character. No player, after making an amazing one-handed catch, thinks to themselves, “Wow! I won’t be able to do that again until the next game!” Nor do they think to themselves, “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today.”

It's a strawman, by design; since it grants a +4 in certain circumstances, it's not clear why it needs special treatment to limit its frequency. A "daily power" of healing has to be limited or the character effectively regenerates.

But to rebut the example as it is: In order to make the spectacular catch, a football player generally has to extend his body and is vulnerable to punishing hits from the defenders as he does so (painful but not necessarily represented in actual hit points damage). The limitation on doing this may well be a purely psychological one; the ordinary player lacks the skill to do this at all, while the player who can do it once is simply intimidated from risking it twice ("That would be pushing my luck!" or even "I better save that for a more decisive moment because I know I won't dare it twice.") or is in fact too bruised to succeed again. I don't find that a worse abstraction than hit points.

A magic-user can only cast a spell x times a day, because that is how the magic system works and both character and player know it.
A fighter being able to make a particular fighting move x times a day makes no sense from the point of view of the character, just like the “one-handed catch” example. The decision to do this completely non-magical move 2/day is completely divorced from the context of the setting, it’s solely a player decision, to provide tactical and strategic resource management, and as such is dissociated from the character.

So there are a number of examples from the 5e fighter to consider. The first and obvious one is hit points (and hit dice); why is this not a deal breaker, when a discussion of what they represent breaks out on any RPG forum regularly? I would think that anyone who has enough hit points to survive the maximum damage from a shotgun at close range would in fact actually be magical.

But on to some of the edition specific cases for fighters (multiple uses possible at certain levels):

Second wind - healing as a bonus action, once per short rest. ("You have a limited well of stamina that you can draw on to protect yourself from harm.")
Action surge - an extra action, once or twice per short rest (but only one per round). ("you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment.")
Indomitable - reroll a failed save, one to three times per long rest. (no additional description of what this represents beyond the name)

The consistent theme is that they tire out and have to rest to restore the ability. Voluntary control of the endocrine system hardly seems less believable than having 200 hit points.

Yes, the main purpose is to give player and character more interesting choices. An inability on the player's part to understand the character's knowledge and decision making is not really a flaw in the mechanic (although maybe the rule system's failure for not offering an explanation).

I'll agree it's a little awkward that apparently fighters have a second wind muscle and an action surge muscle and an indomitable muscle; it would probably be better for them to have a single pool like a monk's ki. But it's also awkward that a D&D fighter can apparently swing a heavy weapon some ten thousand times in an 8 hour day; once you say "no more than x hundred/day" you're in the same situation. A major league baseball pitcher can manage some number of innings (or pitches) before losing effectiveness; his arm is tired and will take days to recover to normal effectiveness. But sooner than that he can probably run as well as before pitching, since his legs don't bear the same fatigue. Something observable in the real world cannot be divorced from the game setting which tries to mimic that aspect of the real world.

For a non-fighter case, a dragonborn can breathe destructive energy (specifics depending on their ancestry), and have to take a rest to recover this; presumably like dragons they have some organ that stores up this breath weapon which takes time to fill up again.

Really just read the essay.

Thank you, I did read the essay.
 
I would prefer hit dice being used to heal and the actual 'healing' you get from a long rest is half your level in hit dice back - which you can then use/not use in healing naturally.
My experience is that D&D 5e doesn't break with this change. Players will have change how they handle logistics while adventuring. It imparts a more gritty feel to the campaign but less so than AiME's take which is long rest can only be taken in a safe refuge.
 
Catching up my peanut gallery comments with the threat content:

I hope that was supposed to be "thread".

Powers for everyone: I don't like.
Quick easy healing of all wounds: I don't like.
Mundane physical abilities that can only be used x times per day: I don't like.

These are all respectable preferences which don't need to be called "dissociated" or some other word.
 
The mechanic is dissociated

I agree with you but there is an alternative point of view to Justin's take.

No player, after making an amazing one-handed catch, thinks to themselves, “Wow! I won’t be able to do that again until the next game!” Nor do they think to themselves, “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today.”

Alternative takes is that One Handed catches are a low probability event that only occurs one or twice a game. If one is being true to the setting, then you would include some kind of "critical" or "stunt" table that reflect those odds in the mechanics as that how it would work if you are there viewing the situation.

However one can half ass represent this by an X times per day ability. As a leisure activity there is a bit of wish fulfillment going on with RPGs. We know that skilled receivers in football make amazing one handed catches it just doesn't happen often. But if you are pretending to be one sometime for some group it more fun knowing that it will happen one or twice rather leaving it to chance as you would with rolling a critical or getting to use it from a stunt table.

It not my cup of tea in what I want to play or referee but I get why people want to have it as part of the rules. And it is not quite as non-representative of reality as Justin makes it out to be. It metagaming to force a low probability event to happen.

The problem is when more and more X per day abilities are added to a system to represent this these things. I think there is a point that is reach quickly where the designer should take a step back and think about subbing in a critical or stunt system instead.
 
OD&D had a mechanical way of doing this. It was called "the fighters form a line."
That works when you have the assumption of a lot of man-at-arms types or just plain lots of fighters, which I understand was common back in the early days. But in more recent patterns of play with 4-5 PCs, only one or two of whom might be line-ready it doesn’t work on a practical level.
 
Short rests are an hour, not 30 minutes. The only healing in 5e that i'm ambivalent about is getting all your hit points back after a long rest. I would prefer hit dice being used to heal and the actual 'healing' you get from a long rest is half your level in hit dice back - which you can then use/not use in healing naturally.
We tried that. It didn't achieve much because it meant the healers just busted out all the healing they had to get us up to full, knowing they would get it back after a good night's sleep.

So the result was the same just with extra bookkeeping.
 
I think part of the problem with the one handed catch is that it requires you step out of the narrative for a moment to justify it. Then you need to do so by making it up and assume instead of having more information at hand.
 
That works when you have the assumption of a lot of man-at-arms types or just plain lots of fighters, which I understand was common back in the early days. But in more recent patterns of play with 4-5 PCs, only one or two of whom might be line-ready it doesn’t work on a practical level.
Formation tactics work with 4 to 5 individuals. There are different formations one can use. In addition specific to OD&D that Gronan uses is that there is little difference between character in terms of being able to hit something and doing damage. From 1st to 2nd level, a magic user as the same to hit chance as a fighter. Does the same amount of damage, 1d6, as a fighter.

The main difference is armor and hit points. Which of course is a factor in how you setup a formation.

Even in later edition many "non combat" classes can be useful in melee if they have support from teammates. It takes planning, practice, and some thought about the fight one picks.
 
I think part of the problem with the one handed catch is that it requires you step out of the narrative for a moment to justify it. Then you need to do so by making it up and assume instead of having more information at hand.
Hence the metagaming aspect of tagging low probability event as X per day.
 
We tried that. It didn't achieve much because it meant the healers just busted out all the healing they had to get us up to full, knowing they would get it back after a good night's sleep.

So the result was the same just with extra bookkeeping.
The healing is a decent mix I think. It assumes all players play the typical game model of 3 to 4 encounters and rest though. Which doesn't usually happen in my experience.
It does allow regrouping and a pause for non combat activities without punishing or rewarding to heavily.
I dont mind 5e healing.

Its possible to dislike 4e but still appreciate aspects of it. Its the game as a whole that we tend to judge.
 
My experience is that D&D 5e doesn't break with this change. Players will have change how they handle logistics while adventuring. It imparts a more gritty feel to the campaign but less so than AiME's take which is long rest can only be taken in a safe refuge.

When 5e was in development, I thought it was going to work this way. Not hard to change and as you say not a game-breaker.
 
It not my cup of tea in what I want to play or referee but I get why people want to have it as part of the rules. And it is not quite as non-representative of reality as Justin makes it out to be. It metagaming to force a low probability event to happen.
This is true - and there are examples of when this kind of simple way to handle things works really well. They worked better for encounter powers for example - because they were always just once a combat so they handled that abstraction well and could represent chance.

Dailies could get a bit weird because you're making long term planning (do we push on now or rest) based on resources your characters just don't know they have i.e. "How does my Warlord know that he can't use Lead the Attack again".*

However, I think a lot of groups have probably also taken this stance toward Vancian magic over the years too.

If I was hacking 4E I would probably look at doing something like making Fighter 'Dailies' into buffs that could be put on encounter powers by spending a healing surge to activate them. (Or some other kind of universal exhaustion mechanic).
 
Last edited:
The healing is a decent mix I think. It assumes all players play the typical game model of 3 to 4 encounters and rest though. Which doesn't usually happen in my experience.
It does allow regrouping and a pause for non combat activities without punishing or rewarding to heavily.
I dont mind 5e healing.

Its possible to dislike 4e but still appreciate aspects of it. Its the game as a whole that we tend to judge.
That's true, in the game we tried the healing variant the GM was letting us rest far too often. It may be worth trying it again.

It's actually supposed to be 6-8 encounters in 5E (which is an insane amount). But the game works so much better when you do hit that amount that I'm convinced that if a game is not hitting that then the definition of rest at the table needs to change.
 
Even in later edition many "non combat" classes can be useful in melee if they have support from teammates. It takes planning, practice, and some thought about the fight one picks.

My Valour Bard in 5e is pretty handy in fights. He doles out inspiration and because of his war caster feat can cast a fair few spells with weapon and shield in hand. True, his damage output is poor, but he eats up enemy attacks, can help the fighter thus gaining advantage, as well as use his spells. Judicious use of healing word keeps him in the fight when other casters would go down. I'm really enjoying it and am probably the 2nd worse in combat in a party of 5.
 
Hence the metagaming aspect of tagging low probability event as X per day.
Except its mixed in with magic that uses this same system for different reasons. That makes it jarring and takes away the metagame aspect for... Reasons.

Supernatural abilities were often locked behind timeframes (on the full moon... Once before the full moon... A year and a day... Etc....) So its already a part of our worlds lore.
Mixing in skill based abilities for an entirely different set of mental gymnastics is... Well... Something.

It just doesn't blend and then becomes dissociative in another way to me.
 
Catching up my peanut gallery comments with the threat content:

Powers for everyone: I don't like.
Quick easy healing of all wounds: I don't like.
Mundane physical abilities that can only be used x times per day: I don't like.
...what do you mean by "powers for everyone"? Other than that, I pretty much agree with your "don't likes", but I'm not quite sure whether I can agree with that (since I'm not quite sure what it means:thumbsup:).
 
Except its mixed in with magic that uses this same system for different reasons. That makes it jarring and takes away the metagame aspect for... Reasons.

The basic test is whether you can describe it to me as if I was standing with you in the sitting. In general most magic system can be described like this. The one handed catch being used once per game deliberately is problematic.
 
I know very little of 4E. It took one game session for me to realize I hated the system thoroughly, so I've got not criticisms of the "finer points" of the game. But I find the concept of Disassociated Mechanics in general very easy to comprehend and widely applicable, seeing it as analogous to what I deemed previously "Because Game" - rules that exist simply because something is a game instead of modelling the reality of the gameworld. This is something that has irked me across the hobby, and is not analogous to an abstraction, which I can easily accept in most cases.

Usually I find "Because Game" mechanics are implemented (clumsily IMO) to achieve some notion of "game balance", a concept I view with more skepticism than Magister does disassociation. More pernicious are the times that BG mechanics are instituted to enforce genre tropes. I like Genre Games. Anyone who knows me knows my favourite system is FASERIP (the REAL FASERIP, not the psuedo-clone that stole that name), which I consider a masterstroke of Genre Game design. But it does this by modelling the reality of the world of that genre, not by attempting to mechanically enforce characters acting like cliches. The counterpoint to this is Marvel Heroic, where the game rules are almost entirely based around modelling cliches rather than modelling the reality of the gameworld in which those cliches are possible.

One of the reasons I prefer RPGS over videogames is that Because Game mechanics aren't at all necessary in an RPG, whereas videogames mostly cannot avoid them. I think this video sums up the concept of disassociation in a game perfectly:



Anyways, tangent aside, I may not know 4E well, but I certainly understand why players would object to it based on a high amount of disassociated mechanics (and thus, likewise, the many people who described 4e as "video-gamey"). Though I agree that some abstractions can be rationalized in gameplay even if the game's rules don't specifically spell them out, I find some of the rationalizations offered don't stand up to any scrutiny. A rationalization for a rule needs to explain that rule in all circumstanbces, not a single isolated circumstance.

To take the previously mentioned example from the original Alexandrian essay:

“For example, consider a football game in which a character has the One-Handed Catch ability: Once per game they can make an amazing one-handed catch, granting them a +4 bonus to that catch attempt.

The mechanic is dissociated because the decision made by the player cannot be equated to a decision made by the character. No player, after making an amazing one-handed catch, thinks to themselves, “Wow! I won’t be able to do that again until the next game!” Nor do they think to themselves, “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today.”

The following rebuttal/rationalization was offered:

But to rebut the example as it is: In order to make the spectacular catch, a football player generally has to extend his body and is vulnerable to punishing hits from the defenders as he does so (painful but not necessarily represented in actual hit points damage). The limitation on doing this may well be a purely psychological one; the ordinary player lacks the skill to do this at all, while the player who can do it once is simply intimidated from risking it twice ("That would be pushing my luck!" or even "I better save that for a more decisive moment because I know I won't dare it twice.") or is in fact too bruised to succeed again. I don't find that a worse abstraction than hit points.

The reason this rebuttal/rationalization does not work is that it only makes sense as a reasoning for one individual, but the rule itself is applied to every character in the game equally. It makes no sense once you then take it as a rationale for the rule in general, because it would suggest that EVERY person has the exact same psychological framework. OR to put it back to the specific example, it suggests EVERY football player ever in the world has the very same mental processes that restricts their ability in this specifically timed manner.

There ARE things less believable than magic, and that's definitely one.
 
The basic test is whether you can describe it to me as if I was standing with you in the sitting. In general most magic system can be described like this. The one handed catch being used once per game deliberately is problematic.
I can agree with that.
 
OD&D had a mechanical way of doing this. It was called "the fighters form a line."
That worked when the game was closer to it's wargaming roots, where players were the heroic leaders of a small troop of soldiers. Unfortunately (or not, depending on your outlook) that changed during the later books when the Henchmen rules started to give less aid per level. Not to mention the limitation of what the hired help were willing to do, like not engage in combat, etc.
 
Short rests are an hour, not 30 minutes. The only healing in 5e that i'm ambivalent about is getting all your hit points back after a long rest. I would prefer hit dice being used to heal and the actual 'healing' you get from a long rest is half your level in hit dice back - which you can then use/not use in healing naturally.

There are optional healing rules in the DMG that seem like good options to address this, including:

- Short rest heals require the expenditure of a healer's kit

- After a long rest PCs must spend Hit Dice to recover HP, just like a short rest

- The 'gritty realism' rest variant uses a short rest of 8 hours and a long rest of 7 days
 
the only thing i dislike about marking is that it is special to the fighter without a lot of explanation.
I dunno, I kinda see it because each of the physical classes have a distinct role in a battle.

Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians are specialists, who are all relatively self-reliant and can just go wherever the enemy doesn't want them to be. Paladins are leaders and force multipliers, who lead from the front and make everyone better by standing near them. But Fighters are your front line, it's their job to buy time for your specialists and deny the enemy theirs.

If we were doing fantasy demographics, Fighters probably should be the most common class in most armies.
 
That worked when the game was closer to it's wargaming roots, where players were the heroic leaders of a small troop of soldiers. Unfortunately (or not, depending on your outlook) that changed during the later books when the Henchmen rules started to give less aid per level. Not to mention the limitation of what the hired help were willing to do, like not engage in combat, etc.
Formation fighting works because of how positioning and movement works, if a combat system incorporate these then it is a factor, the side that employ them will have the advantage through position and movement alone. The # of henchmen is just a factor in what kind of formation one uses not whether you don't use a formation or not.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top