|
FRINGE posted:This is a really loving boring way to approach the game. and if there is no map there is no truth!
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
People really need to get it into their heads that D&D is and has always been a combat system first and foremost, and the small stumbling steps they make into other areas of play are pretty clumsy and crude compared to tons of other poo poo that's been published for a while. If clarifying terms applied to roles that don't exist in-setting break your verisimilitude, please consider more roleplay-heavy games and also why don't you have a problem with class names too? When you make what amounts to a small unit tactical skirmish game, math really matters. It really, really matters. But the tabletop industry's core is really backwards-looking and fawns over the past rather than trying to think of what the future might look like so we get 5E. One of the biggest promises, that it provides a simpler D&D, is literally only true if you're ignoring most of the game as presented (even if most games never come close to level 10, it's presented as 1-20 as a standard game progression). So yes math matters and yes it is a very good idea to inform new DMs to the pitfalls of 5E and suggest houserules, especially since those rules generally come with an explanation for why
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
ritorix posted:You can already split up movement before/after an action and between attacks. Basically move whenever. You can also use the shield bonus action during an attack, between the actual attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You cannot, however, shove, move, do all your attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:People really need to get it into their heads that D&D is and has always been a combat system first and foremost, and the small stumbling steps they make into other areas of play are pretty clumsy and crude compared to tons of other poo poo that's been published for a while. If clarifying terms applied to roles that don't exist in-setting break your verisimilitude, please consider more roleplay-heavy games and also why don't you have a problem with class names too? This reminds me of some of the other big promises they made. That you could make a character as if from any previous edition and that they could all play together. That all those classes from previous PHBs would be in the game. That the game would be modular and you could use these modules to make the game more like any of the previous editions. Basically they didn't deliver on pretty much any of the promises they made. They had an open playtest, where it seemed like they weren't listening to feedback, and pretty much EXPLICITLY stated this in a round about way by saying that oh we forgot how that worked because we are internally playtesting versions that are multiple revisions ahead of what you are playtesting, so things aren't the same as what you are testing. In other words they did their own internal playtests, then moved on, and eventually threw out to the public old versions that weren't being used any more to claim that the general public had some influence on how Next, later to be known as 5e which goes back on how they wanted to just straight up call it D&D no number, was developed. That isn't to say that there wasn't some changes brought about by the public, unless the internal playtest had the same freakouts that some set in their ways players/DMs had. Since early on the Fighter had a damage on a miss option, and a certain backwards thinking subsect of the community had a collective freakout that a FIGHTER could do something like that. Never mind that spellcasters basically had the same thing with spells. The Warlock and Sorcerer were introduced, and looked interesting. But since the only Sorcerer archetype that was revealed was the Dragon bloodline, and the Dragon bloodline gave the Sorcerer armor proficiency, and some weapon proficiencies, some people freaked out at the Sorcerer being a tank rather than a cloth wearer. They didn't wait to see how other bloodlines might have worked. And so the Sorcerer, and Warlock, were taken out of the playtests and were not seen again until numerous revisions of the playtest were through, so one couldn't just slot them into the playtest anymore as the whole way the game worked had changed. They were not seen again until the public playtest was over so basically the public didn't even get to playtest them at all. There were a lot of other changes over the playtest that were bad, but those two at least had a small but vocal minority complaining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Why not? Are there any other rules that interfere with arbitrary movement interleaving? I've never seen anything mention that. You can move between attacks. You can move after taking an action. Shield shove prior to any attacks requires you to take an attack action, then use your bonus action before attacking. As you have already started taking your attack action, there is no movement opportunity between the bonus action and your first attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
A good DM can make a good story regardless of the system. My old DM had a story that ran from 3.5-->4e-->Pathfinder (and I think the only reason we stopped playing 4e was because it was early and we had all made some pretty lovely character building choices, then like 3 people got fired) Also: 4e took away the mind control spells, but it gave every class more narrative control through poo poo like skill utilities and themes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You can move before taking an action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Splicer posted:You can move before taking an action. Since it is obvious and common sense and clearly correct that the rules which specify exactly when you can move should also allow you to move at times they don't specify, this is your fault for treating the game like a game and whining about the rules of the game instead of just doing the obviously correct thing that the rules don't mention and then pretending that that's what's written down and this isn't a fix. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:it's not any weirder to also move in between those things The rules specify when you can move. "After taking the attack action but before making attacks" is not mentioned. You can say it's obvious that you should be able to do that, but that's not what the designers of the game chose to print in the rulebook. I can see why people think it should be allowed, but it's not an obvious omission that you can start making "but common sense" or "but clearly" statements about. It could just as easily be worded as it is intentionally, to prevent exactly the declare attack-action > take bonus-action shield push > move > make attacks scenario that we're discussing. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
no I think this is wrong Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
e: ^^^^^ Yeah, you got it. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I wrote other things here, but even with your interpretation of that, I think you're wrong even in the pedantic rules-as-written mode to the extreme. A shove is a type of attack and thus the movement is between attacks. I don't see it saying you can only move in between attacks that are part of the same attack action. PHB page 190. "You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action." "If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Splicer posted:As you have already started taking your attack action, there is no movement opportunity between the bonus action and your first attack. I think this is the made-up part. There's no such thing as a 'movement opportunity' or whatever, there is no move action, you can move whenever. The rules actually say this on PHB190. edit: look at what this loving game makes us do 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
yeah just crossed it out - you're right
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
ritorix posted:I think this is the made-up part. There's no such thing as a 'movement opportunity' or whatever, there is no move action, you can move whenever. The rules actually say this on PHB190. They definitely do not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I wrote other things here, but even with your interpretation of that, I think you're wrong even in the pedantic rules-as-written mode to the extreme. A shove is a type of attack and thus the movement is between attacks. I don't see it saying you can only move in between attacks that are part of the same attack action. quote:Breaking Up Your Move Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:They definitely do not. Still wrong. We aren't attacking between the action attacks (which is ok). We are moving before the action starts (which is also ok).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
This is actually simple. You can move at any time. The end pretty much.tzirean posted:That makes a lot of sense and I probably wouldn't have figured it out this early. Thanks! I would not do this. It's going to change the entire game to the point you should just play 4e were that is part of the base game. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Still wrong. We aren't attacking between the action attacks (which is ok). We are moving before the action starts (which is also ok).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Still wrong. We aren't attacking between the action attacks. We are moving before the action starts. What? We're talking about moving after a shield push granted by a bonus-action (that has to happen after you take the attack-action), before any of your attack-action-attacks. MonsterEnvy posted:This is actually simple. You can move at any time. The end pretty much. You are wrong. See my previous post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Nope! You have to take the action to use the bonus action. No you don't
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:This is actually simple. You can move at any time. The end pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Nope! You have to take the action to use the bonus action. Sure. And we are doing that as our action. After we move. Which we can do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:No you don't Can you explain how you can start something that can only happen "if you take the attack action", before you take the attack action?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Okay wait, once again, this sounds wrong. The attack action hasn't happened when you do the shield shove, you do the shove before you take the action, just after you announce your binding intent to. Crawford's response says "As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action" - if it comes before, you haven't yet taken the attack action and none of this applies, qed.
Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:No you don't ritorix posted:Sure. And we are doing that as our action. After we move. Which we can do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action." Except the feat states that you have to start the Attack action to do it, so you are stuck shoving someone and then you cannot move because shoving in this case is not an attack and doesn't let you use the clause in the attack action moving because you have to attack before moving that way
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Okay wait, once again, this sounds wrong. The attack action hasn't happened when you do the shield shove, you do the shove before you take the action, just after you announce your binding intent to. Crawford's response says "As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action" - if it comes before, you haven't yet taken the attack action and none of this applies, qed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Well yeah, if the wording in the rulebook turns out to be wrong, then of course it doesn't work like it's worded in the rulebook, it's so simple I can't believe you guys discussing the rulebook didn't see it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Splicer posted:So you're taking a bonus action triggered by an Action that you have not yet taken?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
This discussion started with someone saying that the game should be run as-is before any changes to the rules are made, and people claiming that the game is simple.Darwinism posted:Except the feat states that you have to start the Attack action to do it, so you are stuck shoving someone and then you cannot move because shoving in this case is not an attack and doesn't let you use the clause in the attack action moving because you have to attack before moving that way ...and this is why the game is not simple. You read the rules and do what they say, and this is what you get. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
I’m putting the attack action on the stack.Ryuujin posted:Basically they didn't deliver on pretty much any of the promises they made. They had an open playtest, where it seemed like they weren't listening to feedback, and pretty much EXPLICITLY stated this in a round about way by saying that oh we forgot how that worked because we are internally playtesting versions that are multiple revisions ahead of what you are playtesting, so things aren't the same as what you are testing. In other words they did their own internal playtests, then moved on, and eventually threw out to the public old versions that weren't being used any more to claim that the general public had some influence on how Next, They lost the remainder of my respect when they did this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This discussion started with someone saying that the game should be run as-is before any changes to the rules are made, and people claiming that the game is simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:
If you're going to identify 3 distinct areas of your game, you give everyone something to do in them instead of explicitly going 100/0/0 fighter and saying this is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I don't think anyone means this even with respect to phb errata provided by the author. Y'all are so hungry to fight a straw-poster from 5 years ago... Does that change appear in an errata document? ImpactVector posted:For me it was going full dumbass on their 3 silos/pillars. For me it was getting blocked on Twitter for asking if 3 pages of the fighter rules had been accidentally omitted from the most recent playtest (where every class had 4 pages of rules except the fighter, which had 1). Like, my tweet was, verbatim "Could you please tell me if some fighter rules were accidentally left out? Every other class has 4 pages." Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:For me it was going full dumbass on their 3 silos/pillars. Yeah, I changed my post from “all” to “remainder” before I posted specifically because of that article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:As it turns out, reducing a game to numbers shuffling around on a grid also makes it really easy to write predictable design. Sure - but (placeholder for effort response later, if I remember).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Does that change appear in an errata document?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:That's what sage advice is, no? I don't think it's in the compendium but that falls under errata to me. Originally, Sage Advice was explicitly described as not being errata. If that's changed, then my bad. If it is errata, then it really should go into the same document as other errata rather than residing in a separate place. e: Also, I think errata should replace or add to the rules. As in "replace the paragraph beginning <like this> with <replacement paragraph", or "after the sentence ending <like this>, insert <new sentence>", rather than "here's my interpretation". I guess it's just my opinion, but I want a patch, not a workaround. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jan 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
ImpactVector posted:For me it was going full dumbass on their 3 silos/pillars. I checked out after the Fighter got a massive nerf(I think it was when Damage on a Miss got taken out). The next playtest poll was "What's more iconic, Red Dragons or Beholders?" At that point I realized we were in more of a Blizzard hype "beta" than an actual playtest. It was kind of amazing watching this thread's predecessor go from enthusiasm and excitement to confusion and disappointment. People forget Goons were loving HYPE when 5e was announced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2018 21:53
|
|
