|
CaPensiPraxis posted:(The text is bad, just throw it out and allow [reasonable thing player wants to do] even if [the rules ambiguously say otherwise].) 5e.txt?
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
The fighter post led me to gradenko’s blog, which led me reading about the “orcus” pre4e. Which leads me to the question, Why did battlemaster fighter get reduced to short rests n the first place? (Are people complaining that battlemaster is unrealistic as they did with 4e exploits?) Oh, and what diminished maneuver dice from all martials to one fighter option?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Comparing reading that you can use a bonus action before an action is really loving different from speeding past a red light like an idiot or trying to get your rear end beat at a club. Neither analogy works, at all. The Gate laid it out, one usage of getting a bonus action says immediately after taking an attack action, but this one does not. That's 100% clear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:He made a video where that was his main argument: vague rules are good so it's better if the system is poorly written, and anyone who disagrees isn't a 'real' D&D player and probably doesn't have a life. jesus christ what a bad video. the thing is that if you use a recipe for french cranberry chicken you're likely to get an edible meal while if you use a recipe for a garbage sandwich you probably won't
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Comparing reading that you can use a bonus action before an action is really loving different from speeding past a red light like an idiot or trying to get your rear end beat at a club. Neither analogy works, at all. The Gate laid it out, one usage of getting a bonus action says immediately after taking an attack action, but this one does not. That's 100% clear. How are you interpreting "If X, Y" such that Y can happen before X is true, for this one specific rule, while also agreeing that "If X, Y" is necessarily sequential at any other time? You can dismiss other examples of that logic as silly because they are, but they're not sillier than this example. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Serf posted:jesus christ what a bad video. the thing is that if you use a recipe for french cranberry chicken you're likely to get an edible meal while if you use a recipe for a garbage sandwich you probably won't Also if you're actually cooking meals then you don't have time to discuss recipes because if you're doing it right you are devoting every waking hour of free time to things that prevent you from asking why your meal with 2 cups of feces tastes like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Wow gently caress that guy. I was asking "these questions" when I was running *three* games a week, so gently caress off?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Comparing reading that you can use a bonus action before an action is really loving different from speeding past a red light like an idiot or trying to get your rear end beat at a club. Neither analogy works, at all. The Gate laid it out, one usage of getting a bonus action says immediately after taking an attack action, but this one does not. That's 100% clear. I refuse to believe you don't understand if-then statements at this point
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I refuse to believe you don't understand if-then statements at this point Shield Master: If you use an attack action on this turn, then you can shove with a bonus action. No mention of it must be before or after. Monk Flurry of Blows: If you use an attack action, you can then spend a ki point to attack with a bonus action immediately after. I'm not seeing what isn't clear here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
God, Matt Colville is such a pompous bitch boy
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Since you can take the attack action but then choose to make one attack even if you have two or more, it stands to reason that you can take the attack action and then use it to make 0 attacks. That's why it's called natural language.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Shield Master: If you use an attack action on this turn, then you can shove with a bonus action. No mention of it must be before or after. What's not clear is how you're managing to interpret the conditional if in "if you take the attack action" as being met before it happens. "If you do X, you can do Y" contains "You can not do Y before you do X". "If you open the gate, you can move through the gate" contains "You can not move through the gate before you open it". "If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to shove a creature" contains "You can not use a bonus action to shove a creature before you take the attack action on your turn". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:God, Matt Colville is such a pompous bitch boy
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
NGDBSS posted:What's his claim to fame here, anyway? Everything I can find seems to be centered around his YT channel, and that seems to be D&D-centric to a fault. He works at turtle rock studios and if I remember correctly is the DM for some celebrities/stand ups
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
He also kinda writes books that he's very proud of but everything else I've seen leads me to believe they kinda suck. Honestly, Matt seems like a pretty okay guy overall from what I've seen of his YT videos but as a GM he seems... really flat and boring, honestly. His games sure seem to make way better stories than actual games IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:That's not really a very good argument. It's an obscure edge case in an optional section on a feat that maybe 1 person in 20 parties might pick up(has anyone here ever played at a table where someone had shield master? I honestly have no clue who'd pick that one up.) I agree that the game is not simple but this isn't why. Shield Master is the best feat for STR-based one-handed characters that isn't PAM. However, most people playing one-handed characters aren't optimizing, and if they're optimizing they're probably going to use PAM+QS. SM thus gets sidelined despite being a really good feat. However, it's still a good example to bring up when discussing the problems of natural language in the rules, and the lack of rigor in making sure all the various rules work together - saying "oh well feats are a variant rule anyway" is no excuse for this, since they're such a huge part of character customization that the fact they have the label 'variant rule' seems an intentional cop out on the part of the designers. Dragonatrix posted:His games sure seem to make way better stories than actual games IMO. This is every popular stream/youtube campaign ever; they attract an audience by being entertaining to watch or told about, not by being good to play in. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jan 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:However, it's still a good example to bring up when discussing the problems of natural language in the rules, and the lack of rigor in making sure all the various rules work together - saying "oh well feats are a variant rule anyway" is no excuse for this, since they're such a huge part of character customization that the fact they have the label 'variant rule' seems an intentional cop out on the part of the designers. There are much worse examples within 5e that I would choose if I wanted to illustrate the problem. Conjure animals/woodland beings is my favorite because the only choices are "deal with this horrible game-ruining spell as written in the intuitive way", "have the DM choose the creatures, as sage advice suggests, potentially fixing the spell but only if you purposely ruin the spell for the caster sometimes and also ruin the obvious thematic intention of "I conjure these animals now"", or play amateur designer and come up with something that lets the druid call forth a bunch of birds when they want them without also giving them 8x castings of polymorph per level 3 spell slot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:This is a valid dissection of the problem of natural language rules if you trying to like, write a computer implementation or something with that level of rigor. Edge cases falling apart isn't a huge deal for a game that's hand-implemented by humans in the same way. It's more like an automated rigor-checking system tripping on an edge case than a human identifying a real problem. "Shield Master is poorly worded" is a valid complaint but it's fundamentally a small/unimportant one simply by virtue of how infrequently it will come up and how easy it is to resolved. I understand what you're trying to say, but your own example is just one spell, from one class, that can be exchanged after a long rest if it doesn't work out the way the player/DM expected  A feat like Shield Master otoh becomes a fundamental part of a martial's combat routine when selected, carrying a steep opportunity cost given the limited nature of feats, and if we're playing by the rules then they're stuck with it because unlike spells there are no retraining rules for feats! If it'd make my position clearer, can we go for a sort of middle ground here, and mutually acknowledge that 5e is badly designed not due to single examples of big obvious things that are fundamentally broken and/or unworkable, but because it's utterly permeated by little mistakes you can spot if you look at the seams and squint just a little? Mistakes that are just a minor annoyance on their own, but build up to be more than the sum of them due to the system's lack of design direction or rigor in making sure the rules worked with each other. It's why I think SM is a great example - it's not a game ruining situation if it works one way or the other, which actually makes a more insidious kind of oversight, and you can explicitly compare it to similarly worded abilities. It's in a place where it carries great contextual weight behind it when looking at the system's troubles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
What happens under this interpretation if you shield-push a creature off a cliff? Do you attack the air because you are now forced to attack? Is your action simply wasted? What happens?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:What happens under this interpretation if you shield-push a creature off a cliff? Do you attack the air because you are now forced to attack? Is your action simply wasted? What happens? A location is a valid attack target, so yes you can just swing at empty air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Or you can just go "I'm not going to attack cause there is nothing to attack." Unless you've got movement to get to an enemy still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Arthil posted:Or you can just go "I'm not going to attack cause there is nothing to attack." Unless you've got movement to get to an enemy still. To be clear, I think just changing the ability's clause to, "You may perform a shove attack as a bonus action while wearing a shield" would have, you know, saved us lot of this hassle. But "When you perform the attack action, you may perform a shove as bonus action, even if you end up not attacking" is some weird nomenclature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
It makes perfect sense from a programming standpoint. You get 1 Action() per turn, 1 BonusAction per turn and you can call Move() a number of times equal to your movement divided by 5 per turn. Once you call Action("Attack") from that point forward you can call the Attack("target") function a number of times equal to your attacks per round, use your Move() action, use your BonusAction("ShieldSlam"), or EndTurn (). So you can Move(), Move() again [10 feet total used], Action ("Attack"), BonusAction ("ShieldSlam","goblin1"), EndTurn(). Your Action being "Attack" isn't actually tied to attacking anyone. You can boot yourself out of the loop and end your turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Yeah that's the easy way to frame it. The action is the declaration of intent, once you do it you can't take any other actions, and you are free to swing at any time up to however many extra attacks you have, and interleave them with movement arbitrarily. Explaining that more clearly would probably be a mistake, at least if that's what you said of "for your action you can attack". That's letting precise language make your explanation worse for people skimming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
By the way, rereading the rules of movement, as long as it is not difficult terrain, you can enter a new square as long as you have one foot of movement. The five foot cost is for exiting a square. It doesn't come up much because you're always moving in multiples of five normally, but when you're jumping, for example, you should be able to reach a space across the chasm as long as you have one more foot if movement upon clearing the last square in the chasm. Did ya'll know that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Relentless posted:It makes perfect sense from a programming standpoint. Yes, but the argument so far has been that you can use the bonus action before you take the attack action, not after you take the attack action but before you make any of the attacks (presumably because the second way fucks up flurry of blows if you choose to apply the same logic to it). Arthil posted:Shield Master: If you use an attack action on this turn, then you can shove with a bonus action. No mention of it must be before or after.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yes, but the argument so far has been that you can use the bonus action before you take the attack action, not after you take the attack action but before you make any of the attacks (presumably because the second way fucks up flurry of blows if you choose to apply the same logic to it). Okay, so for that wording, you can use the BonusAction("ShieldSlam") without declaring your Action(). But attempting any other Action() other than Action("Attack") pops up an error message, and special error handling doesn't let you call EndTurn() without calling Action("Attack") first. Either way has no effect on the Stack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
No the argument so far has been "How the gently caress does this workaround to a clumsy rule actually work in practice because it's stupid as gently caress" and has been stupid as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
It doesn't specify that you do damage after a successful attack, so you can do damage before your attack as long as you say "I attack" afterwards. Obviously your damage might kill the guy you were going to attack, so you can just declare that you attack the air or whatever and it's all good. Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
If you don't preroll your damage you're a casual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Instead of coming up with increasingly convoluted ways to have the wording that exists make sense, let's move away from that and discuss how to word the rules such so that the result we want is clearer. For the record, "I call the Attack()function which may or may not include a valid attack" is rational but also incredibly counter-intuitive, which I guess would make perfect sense for 5e.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
Caphi posted:Since you can take the attack action but then choose to make one attack even if you have two or more, it stands to reason that you can take the attack action and then use it to make 0 attacks. Where's that reasoning come from? To me, naturally it doesn't follow that to make zero attacks you take an attack action when you can take no attacks by not taking the action. Taking an attack action implies that you're attacking, if we're going by naturalistic terms. e: And this is exactly the problem of using purposefully subjective language to describe an objective set of rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:discuss how to word the rules such so that the result we want is clearer. TAKING AN ACTION At the start of your turn, you must declare what action you will be performing this turn. This is called "taking the action", and must always happen before you do anything else on your turn. -- I think that solves everything except Flurry Of Blows, which then needs to be re-worded or read straight up as "after you declare your action, before anything else".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
Honestly, as it's been suggested before, just getting rid of the requirement to attack and just turning the ability into basically a use bonus action button (like the attack from PAM) would be the easiest and probably best solution for their system. Works just fine with Flurry, too, and doesn't break anything because martial contribution is already so limited that adding an extra toy doesn't change anything. edit: Damnit, even PAM's bonus is tainted Darwinism fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Honestly, as it's been suggested before, just getting rid of the requirement to attack and just turning the ability into basically a use bonus action button (like the attack from PAM) Actually, Polearm Master reads: "When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
If you always declare your action at the start of your turn, you can type the bonus actions, describe what that means once, and can call them with a keyword. Define Bonus(attack) as something that you can do when you take the attack action (and other types, like Bonus(spell) for something you can do when you take the cast a spell action). The ability looks like this: Shield-Push Bonus(attack) Shove an opponent 5', using your shield. I understand that some people prefer their rules to be moister than that, so Shield-Push Bonus(attack) You have trained long and hard to master this advanced combat maneuver, and can now move an unwilling foe across the battlefield. To do so, you apply a martial technique known as the Shield-Push. Putting your weight behind your shield, you push the enemy. They are knocked off balance and shoved backwards five feet. Other cultures and regions have different names for this ability. Some such include the "shield bash", "shield shunt", "shield rush" and "bin lid advances disrupting balance technique of grand master p".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:If you always declare your action at the start of your turn, you can type the bonus actions, describe what that means once, and can call them with a keyword. Keywords? Come now, we must avoid drawing people's attention to the fact that they're playing a game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
I get why this is an issue, but i really dont understand when it would ever be disputed. Are there people out there that really nitpick about this sort of stuff? Let them shield bash, then do whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
ReapersTouch posted:I get why this is an issue, but i really dont understand when it would ever be disputed. Are there people out there that really nitpick about this sort of stuff? Let them shield bash, then do whatever. If you're not going to follow the rules, or if the rules are written so unclearly that they can't be intuitively followed, they're bad rules. That's it. That's the crux of the argument. Nobody's saying that people can't find a workaround. The problem is that you have to think of coming up with a workaround in the first place, instead of just writing poo poo that works the first time you read it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If you're not going to follow the rules, or if the rules are written so unclearly that they can't be intuitively followed, they're bad rules. I see this as just being pedantic. The intention is do it whenever. And being open to interpenetration does not make something bad. It''s not great or anything and I do prefer being clear, but it's not annoying enough to bother nitpicking like this. Just make a ruling and get on with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:29
|
|
