It looks like 5e grapple is broken. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Ghost Nappa

2014-10-20, 09:56 PM

Homebrew suggestions:

Prerequisite: Strength 13 or higher

You have advantages on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
You can use your action to try and pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, the other creature is restrained.
Creatures that are one size larger than you don't automatically suceed on checks to escape your grapple.

The change in the second line means the following:

The pinned (the victim)'s is grappled:
The grappled creature's speed is treated as 0 and doesn't benefit from any bonus to its speed.
The grapple is broken if the grappler is incapcitated.
The grapple is broken if an effect remove the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect.
The pinned is restrained:
The victim's attack rolls have disadvantage.
Attack rolls against the victim have advantage.
The victim has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws.

The first line is kind of pointless. It only matters on occasions where you don't try to pin the victim, or haven't gotten the chance to do that yet. I suppose that can matter, so for now let's leave it. The problem is that third line. The fix here is actually re-reading the grappling rules on p.195. It makes no mention of "creatures that are one size larger than you automatically escaping." There is also no mention of it in the MM. So let's tweak it a bit.

Prerequisite: Strength 13 or higher

You have advantages on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
You can use your action to try and pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, the other creature is restrained.
You may grapple creatures that are larger in size than you. You cannot drag or carry a creature that is larger in size than you unless that creature is incapacitated.

I think that's a rather nice change personally.

How about Tavern Brawler?

Tavern Brawler v1.1:

Increase your Strength or Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes.
Your unarmed strike increases by 1 die size.* This is applied after any change from "Martial Arts" (even retroactively).
When you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to grapple the target.

Not much of a difference at first glance, but let's explain.

1 -> 1d4 -> 1d6 -> 1d8 -> 1d10 -> 1d12 -> 1d20 -> 1d%

This isn't much of a change, honestly. But it means that the third line isn't totally pointless from anyone who wants to cross-class into Monk (as the second line already is).

Let's make a follow-up feat. The intent is to let someone be a Monk-lite melee grappler while still being beneficial to Monks (as the original feats are problematically not helpful to the one class specifically devoted to unarmed strikes). That being said, I think it's a bit TOO good for Monks.

You have learned the vulnerabilities of the bodies of a number of creatures and can interfere with the pressure points of a creature in close-quarters.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with Unarmed Strikes, Dexterity 13 or higher

Increase your Dexterity by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Increase your Unarmed Strike die by 1 size. This is applied after any change from "Martial Arts" (even retroactively) or the "Tavern Brawler" feat.
When you hit a creature with an Unarmed strike on your turn, you can use a bonus action to grapple, blind, or paralyze the target.
You gain 2 Ki Points. You may expend 1 Ki Point to use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of an unarmed strike.

Strill

2014-10-20, 10:04 PM

Prerequisite: Strength 13 or higher

You have advantages on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
You can use your action to try and pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, the other creature is restrained.
You may grapple creatures that are larger in size than you. You cannot drag or carry a creature that is larger in size than you unless that creature is incapacitated.

It's still pretty weak. Instead of restraining them, you could just shove them prone. This provides all the benefits of restraining, except that ranged attackers have disadvantage instead of advantage. The ability to grapple larger creatures is great though.

Ghost Nappa

2014-10-20, 10:11 PM

It's still pretty weak. Instead of restraining them, you could just shove them prone. This provides all the benefits of restraining, except that ranged attackers have disadvantage instead of advantage. The ability to grapple larger creatures is great though.

Hmm... How about this.

Prerequisite: Strength 13 or higher

You have advantages on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
You can use your action to try and pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, the other creature is restrained.
You can use your bonus action to release a creature from your grapple to shove it prone.
You may grapple creatures that are larger in size than you. You cannot drag or carry a creature that is larger in size than you unless that creature is incapacitated.

Strill

2014-10-20, 10:47 PM

Hmm... How about this.

Prerequisite: Strength 13 or higher

You have advantages on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
You can use your action to try and pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, the other creature is restrained.
You can use your bonus action to release a creature from your grapple to shove it prone.
You may grapple creatures that are larger in size than you. You cannot drag or carry a creature that is larger in size than you unless that creature is incapacitated.

If you release them from your grapple, then they can just stand right back up again on their next turn. The whole point of shoving them prone while grappled is so that they no longer have any movement, and so cannot spend the movement to stand up again.

hecetv

2014-10-20, 11:33 PM

I don't get why grappler would give you the ability to grapple large creatures. Seems wrong.

symongax

2014-10-21, 04:49 AM

If you release them from your grapple, then they can just stand right back up again on their next turn. The whole point of shoving them prone while grappled is so that they no longer have any movement, and so cannot spend the movement to stand up again.

If you shove someone prone in a grapple, surely you will also be prone to keep their movement to 0? As you cannot maintain a grapple when you are standing and the target is prone. I suppose the RAW doesn't specifically state it but it would make real world sense no?

brocadecity

2014-10-21, 05:31 AM

Ghost Nappa

2014-10-21, 07:17 AM

If you shove someone prone in a grapple, surely you will also be prone to keep their movement to 0? As you cannot maintain a grapple when you are standing and the target is prone. I suppose the RAW doesn't specifically state it but it would make real world sense no?

That's what I was thinking. The only way I could think you'd still be holding on someone after pushing them onto the ground like that would be like by the foot or arm, but seems far more likely that you're just pushing them while letting them go (perhaps you're pushing them into a jail cell or something).

Gurka

2014-10-21, 08:08 AM

If you shove someone prone in a grapple, surely you will also be prone to keep their movement to 0? As you cannot maintain a grapple when you are standing and the target is prone. I suppose the RAW doesn't specifically state it but it would make real world sense no?

You can definitely keep somebody down without being prone or supine yourself. Watch some MMA, and you'll see what I mean. And that's when BOTH competitors are trained.

That aside, keep in mind that you MUST have a free hand for each opponent you're grappling, so you're giving up the potential damage of a two handed weapon or dual wielding, and if you wish to grapple two targets at the same time, you sacrifice having a weapon at all. That's a lot of potential damage you're giving up for battlefield control, even with the tavern brawler feat. Unless you're a monk, but RAW a good grappling monk is highly MAD, do I don't really mind as much.

Person_Man

2014-10-21, 08:12 AM

How often do you come across an enemy where the following is true:

1) You don't think your party can kill the enemy in 1 round.
2) Your enemy does not use magic or special abilities which don't rely on movement for targeting.
3) Your enemy is not so big or strong that a Grapple would automatically or probably fail.
4) There are not multiple other enemies to worry about.
5) You use attacks (and not cantrips or spells) as your default offense.
6) You are willing to give up the potential damage from at least one attack for the chance to immobilize one enemy.
7) You want them one enemy to attack you and not one of your allies.

Also, we play most of our combats in the theater of the mind, which is the default for 5E, and only use a map with miniatures when there are a lot of enemies and the terrain/positioning/walls/etc are a very important factor. In the theater of the mind, movement and your relative position to other creatures is not very important, because its essentially impossible to precisely track, and thus its all basically DM fiat. That's why the movement rules are so flexible and Opportunity Attacks are so difficult to trigger. Therefore, even where the above per-conditions are met, Grapple is rarely useful because its difficult to know or care about exactly where anyone is standing.

I'm glad the option exists and is simple. But I've seen Grapple used maybe once or twice in actual games (though Shove tends to get a good amount of use).

Eslin

2014-10-21, 10:05 AM

Also, we play most of our combats in the theater of the mind, which is the default for 5E, and only use a map with miniatures when there are a lot of enemies and the terrain/positioning/walls/etc are a very important factor. In the theater of the mind, movement and your relative position to other creatures is not very important, because its essentially impossible to precisely track, and thus its all basically DM fiat. That's why the movement rules are so flexible and Opportunity Attacks are so difficult to trigger. Therefore, even where the above per-conditions are met, Grapple is rarely useful because its difficult to know or care about exactly where anyone is standing.

I'm glad the option exists and is simple. But I've seen Grapple used maybe once or twice in actual games (though Shove tends to get a good amount of use).

I'm not sure TOTM is the default for 5e. I mean, they said it was, but the rules are still precisely as concrete number based as they were back in 3.5 and 4e. You're still firing 60ft cones, 20ft cylinders and attacking with ranges of 30 or 120 feet, precise numbers that don't really work unless you're playing on a grid.

Admittedly I play more editions with hard numbers than TOTM, but from experience TOTM abilities are supposed to have targeting with descriptions like close/short/long or 1d4 enemies - keeping the exact same mechanics as previous editions and putting in 'oh but it's theatre of the mind now' doesn't actually make it so.

Person_Man

2014-10-21, 11:41 AM

I'm not sure TOTM is the default for 5e. I mean, they said it was, but the rules are still precisely as concrete number based as they were back in 3.5 and 4e. You're still firing 60ft cones, 20ft cylinders and attacking with ranges of 30 or 120 feet, precise numbers that don't really work unless you're playing on a grid.

Admittedly I play more editions with hard numbers than TOTM, but from experience TOTM abilities are supposed to have targeting with descriptions like close/short/long or 1d4 enemies - keeping the exact same mechanics as previous editions and putting in 'oh but it's theatre of the mind now' doesn't actually make it so.

Yeah, if they were really wedded to the theater of the mind they should have used narrative descriptions and not simulationist ones. The simulationist numbers for ranges and movement and whatnot were included because the DMG will contain modules for using a map and 4E style gameplay, which requires them, and for the sake of tradition, since they've been included in every previous edition.

As you noted, Mearls did say explicitly say that ToTM is the default intended mode of play, because it has a lower barrier to entry (new players don't need to buy miniatures) and they did a lot of the development and play testing on Google Hangouts and see more casual and online play as part of the future of the game (where using officially sanctioned WotC online maps would require them to develop a usable website, which is expensive, and they suck at it). I think Mearls has also written various Sage Advices and other online articles going way back to 3.0/3.5 stating that he just prefers that style of play for a variety of reasons.

MaxWilson

2014-10-21, 12:15 PM

How often do you come across an enemy where the following is true:

1) You don't think your party can kill the enemy in 1 round.
2) Your enemy does not use magic or special abilities which don't rely on movement for targeting.
3) Your enemy is not so big or strong that a Grapple would automatically or probably fail.
4) There are not multiple other enemies to worry about.
5) You use attacks (and not cantrips or spells) as your default offense.
6) You are willing to give up the potential damage from at least one attack for the chance to immobilize one enemy.
7) You want them one enemy to attack you and not one of your allies.

These conditions don't seem right to me. You may grapple where condition #1 doesn't apply because only one guy got initiative and you're trying to prevent him from running away (flying tackle). You may grapple where condition #2 doesn't apply because you can knock the enemy prone and grapple him there to give disadvantage on his cantrips (anti-warlock strategy). You may grapple where #4 doesn't apply if you're grappling the biggest threat to prevent him from getting to squishies, or to throw him off a cliff. You may grapple with condition #5 in play as long as at least one character relies on physical attacks (even if it's not the group's primary mode as a whole), or in fact any time as long as spell attacks are bad against this particular foe (lots of immunities, high AC, whatever)--maybe your buddy conjures up an Arcane Gate and grapple somebody through it with you while casting Feather Fall on yourself to inflict 70 points of damage on them per round.

#3, #6, and possibly #7 are really the only strictly necessary conditions for using Grapple.

Slipperychicken

2014-10-21, 12:31 PM

I think grappling could really take off once we have rules for restraining people (preferably with manacles and gags) so they can't move, attack, or cast spells.

Until we get those, I'd probably call it a Strength(Athletics) check to handcuff someone.

Yuki Akuma

2014-10-21, 01:28 PM

You can absolutely grapple someone who is prone while not being prone yourself. Grab his legs and hold them up, for example, and he'll have a pretty hard time standing up.

Slipperychicken

2014-10-21, 01:35 PM

You can absolutely grapple someone who is prone while not being prone yourself. Grab his legs and hold them up, for example, and he'll have a pretty hard time standing up.

You could also just kind of hunch over him and control some of his limbs. Or press a knee into his back to keep him down.

infinitetech

2014-10-21, 08:44 PM

step 1 grab ankle, step two put foot in their crotch, step three plant body firmly, step 4 pull up while turning toward the outside, result separated joints, torn tendons, shredded muscles, broken bones, and someone who isn't going anywhere

The Dolman

2014-10-21, 09:14 PM

Homebrew suggestions:
You have learned the vulnerabilities of the bodies of a number of creatures and can interfere with the pressure points of a creature in close-quarters.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with Unarmed Strikes, Dexterity 13 or higher

Increase your Dexterity by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Increase your Unarmed Strike die by 1 size. This is applied after any change from "Martial Arts" (even retroactively) or the "Tavern Brawler" feat.
When you hit a creature with an Unarmed strike on your turn, you can use a bonus action to grapple, blind, or paralyze the target.
You gain 2 Ki Points. You may expend 1 Ki Point to use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of an unarmed strike.

The first three and a half bullets seem rather amazing, but monks, apparently the target audience, already can use dex for any monk weapon/unarmed attack.

Also, to anyone saying that grapplers can only restrain their targets, say that to the spike dragging technique shown under BJJ build. At high levels, with action surge, step of the wind, cunning action, and mobile, 2d4 damage/square can get ridiculous.

Also:
1. Fairly common
2. Mage Slayer
3. Grappler
4. Prioritize high damage targets
5. War Caster
6. Extra attack, also gives prone, meaning free advantage and impose disadvantage.
7. Disadvantage is nice, see above

EugeneVoid

2014-10-22, 06:32 PM

... the spike dragging technique shown under BJJ build. At high levels, with action surge, step of the wind, cunning action, and mobile, 2d4 damage/square can get ridiculous....

Please explain. I've never heard of this, and 2d4 per square is absolutely monstrous tier damage.

koga305

2014-10-22, 07:41 PM

My group played through the entirety of Hoard of the Dragon Queen (In 24 hours, no less! For charity!), and while I DMed for episodes 2, 4, 6, and 8 I got the chance to play for the other episodes.

My character was Kerri, a Grappler Barbarian. Due to the way our donation incentives were set up, she started a level ahead of the rest of the party and with a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power.* I know any character with a similar setup would do pretty well, but let me tell you - Kerri DOMINATED in many of the fights we played through. She took the Tavern Brawler feat at level 1 (variant human) and proceeded to beat most of our enemies senseless with her bare fists - but the tougher ones? Those she grappled. Her abilities were enhanced by a Rogue level later on, giving her +10 to Athletics checks by level 5. Combined with her advantage from Rage - let's just say that once this girl got you in a headlock, you weren't getting out.

In a one-on-one fight against one of the big bosses, Kerri grappled him, then shoved him to the ground and held him there. With the damage bonuses from Rage and her Strength, she was able to deny the boss's actions (turns out attacking with disadvantage is pretty pointless) while punching him unconscious. Later on, she held a troll down while the party whaled on it with Advantage. I'm really looking forward to playing Kerri in Rise of Tiamat - I suspect some dragons may find their wings pinned some time next year.

So is grappling broken? Not really, but it is a powerful option for the right character while remaining simple to adjudicate. I think that's a win for 5E as a system.

*Which actually weren't a huge upgrade, although going from 16 Strength to 19 was nice.

Symphony

2014-10-22, 07:58 PM

Please explain. I've never heard of this, and 2d4 per square is absolutely monstrous tier damage.

The 2nd level Druid/Ranger spell Spike Growth causes creatures to take 2d4 damage for every 5 feet a creature moves through it. While you can theoretically drag a creature through the edge of the area to give damage without taking it yourself, a level 6(8) Druid(Ranger) can just walk right through the spike growth without taking damage, so you don't even need to 'game' it that way.

Eslin

2014-10-22, 10:00 PM

The 2nd level Druid/Ranger spell Spike Growth causes creatures to take 2d4 damage for every 5 feet a creature moves through it. While you can theoretically drag a creature through the edge of the area to give damage without taking it yourself, a level 6(8) Druid(Ranger) can just walk right through the spike growth without taking damage, so you don't even need to 'game' it that way.

I'm not sure that's the case, Land's Stride specifically states nonmagical plants. Any DM would rule Spike Growth's plants are magical, what with being temporary super sharp thorns created by a spell.

The Dolman

2014-10-22, 10:23 PM

Please explain. I've never heard of this, and 2d4 per square is absolutely monstrous tier damage.

With a druid in your party, or a 3 level dip, spike growth is a 2nd level spell that creates a 20 foot radius circle of spikes centered within 150 feet of the caster that last for 10 minutes. The circle is difficult terrain, which doesn't affect your speed since you are running laps around the circle, digging your enemies' faces into the ground, and deals 2d4 piercing damage for every five feet traveled in the area. With movespeed optimization, it becomes absolutely ridiculous.

EugeneVoid

2014-10-22, 10:29 PM

This is pretty much exactly zone abuse in 4e. Interesting to see how it'll affect things in the future.

Eslin

2014-10-22, 10:29 PM

With a druid in your party, or a 3 level dip, spike growth is a 2nd level spell that creates a 20 foot radius circle of spikes centered within 150 feet of the caster that last for 10 minutes. The circle is difficult terrain, which doesn't affect your speed since you are running laps around the circle, digging your enemies' faces into the ground, and deals 2d4 piercing damage for every five feet traveled in the area. With movespeed optimization, it becomes absolutely ridiculous.

Don't run in circles, you waste movespeed going around corners - run back and forth for optimal pain inducing potential =P

It's 5 damage per 5 feet, which works out nicely - whatever you can boost your speed to, that's how much damage they take.

infinitetech

2014-10-23, 03:18 AM

have the wizard light it on fire for bonus damage, plus the damage for sliding along ground if you want to take the old rule on that into account (only old rule needed)

odigity

2014-10-23, 10:53 AM

have the wizard light it on fire for bonus damage, plus the damage for sliding along ground if you want to take the old rule on that into account (only old rule needed)

I like the idea of casting Hunger of Hadar on top of the Spike Growth circle, then using Eldritch Blast + Repelling Blast and melee shovers to push them in when they get out.

Or just cast Hadar into a room full of partying nobles and lock the door, Angel-style (season 2 with the W&H lawyers).

Geoff

2014-10-23, 11:56 AM

Yeah, if they were really wedded to the theater of the mind they should have used narrative descriptions and not simulationist ones. The simulationist numbers for ranges and movement and whatnot were included because the DMG will contain modules for using a map and 4E style gameplay, which requires them, and for the sake of tradition, since they've been included in every previous edition. I doubt that's why they were included. 5e development was so dedicated to being recognizably D&D, that it only stands to reason that we got all those range and movement numbers because that's what 3e and 2e did (and 1e and 4e did with scale inches and squares, respectively), while D&D has never presented an official "narrative" or area-based system (like MSH, FATE, or 13A or SARN-FU) for positioning.

As you noted, Mearls did say explicitly say that ToTM is the default intended mode of play, because it has a lower barrier to entry (new players don't need to buy miniatures) Considering how cheap & easy it'd be to include tokens in the basic box like they did with Essentials, or with modules the way they did with Encounters, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Most people are kinetic learners, followed by visual, so a map, grid, or other visual aid almost always makes things easier. TotM is not for new players.

It's not like it's for old school players, either, since we were starting when D&D was still closely linked to wargames, and we're all quite familiar with miniatures, and many of us even have large collections of the old toxic lead ones.

It might be for the Role v Roll demagogs of the 90s, except they've always hated D&D, and 5e is for past fans of D&D, not past critics.

No, TotM can only be for the critics of 3e and 4e who called them "grid dependent" for lack of sufficient knowledge of the games to make more informed criticisms.

But, it's strictly lip service. 5e, as Elsin pointed out, is all set up with quantitative range and movement, it's just left decent rules for managing all that to the DMG. Bad or incomplete rules for using scale movement and areas is not the same thing as good rules for using TotM.

I think Mearls has also written various Sage Advices and other online articles going way back to 3.0/3.5 stating that he just prefers that style of play for a variety of reasons.I hadn't heard that, but it makes more sense than the other explanations that have been offered.

Eslin

2014-10-23, 12:02 PM

I doubt that's why they were included. 5e development was so dedicated to being recognizably D&D, that it only stands to reason that we got all those range and movement numbers because that's what 3e and 2e did (and 1e and 4e did with scale inches and squares, respectively), while D&D has never presented an official "narrative" or area-based system (like MSH, FATE, or 13A or SARN-FU) for positioning.

Considering how cheap & easy it'd be to include tokens in the basic box like they did with Essentials, or with modules the way they did with Encounters, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Most people are kinetic learners, followed by visual, so a map, grid, or other visual aid almost always makes things easier. TotM is not for new players.

It's not like it's for old school players, either, since we were starting when D&D was still closely linked to wargames, and we're all quite familiar with miniatures, and many of us even have large collections of the old toxic lead ones.

It might be for the Role v Roll demagogs of the 90s, except they've always hated D&D, and 5e is for past fans of D&D, not past critics.

No, TotM can only be for the critics of 3e and 4e who called them "grid dependent" for lack of sufficient knowledge of the games to make more informed criticisms.

But, it's strictly lip service. 5e, as Elsin pointed out, is all set up with quantitative range and movement, it's just left decent rules for managing all that to the DMG. Bad or incomplete rules for using scale movement and areas is not the same thing as good rules for using TotM.

I hadn't heard that, but it makes more sense than the other explanations that have been offered.

It's Eslin! No-one ever gets it right in real life either D=

Ghost Nappa

2014-11-10, 01:35 PM

The first three and a half bullets seem rather amazing, but monks, apparently the target audience, already can use dex for any monk weapon/unarmed attack.

This is a deliberate choice for Monk-Lite Characters and is intended to be part 2 of a feat chain with the revised Tavern Brawler feat. Think of it as "Magic Initiate"...except for Ki. I didn't want the entire thing to be a wet dream for Monks and a horrible decision for everyone else. The difference here is that by picking up the two of them, you are better at Fisticuffs than anyone (except a Straight Monk with those two feats). I still think that as I've written it's way too good for any Monk NOT to take and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

Basically the last part allows non-Monk characters with High Dex to treat themselves as a Monk for two unarmed attacks. It's their only Ki ability (because they don't have a huge pool of it in the first place and because they aren't taking Monk levels). As I have it written, there being a "dead part" to the feat is perfectly acceptable. And even then, it doesn't have the armor restriction that's there in Martial Arts meaning that you can be armored and use it...so long as you have Ki to fuel it.

Aside:
By and large I think if you're going to give access to class features of one class to everybody, they should compliment and help the class that already has them just as much or more than anyone who is probably picking it up for flavor more than mechanics. For example, wanna make a feat that allows anyone who takes it an Extra Attack (that stacks with the one given by Martial classes) for 3+ attacks on non-Fighters? Sure. Just require it 12 Class Levels and allows the Fighter to take it too. etc.

Perseus

2014-11-10, 02:34 PM

Humanoid to humanoid combat actually works quite well with shoving prone and grappling (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAgtXXHqs74). I would have one argument or another if someone wanted to wrestle a Girallon or an Assassin Vine, but as long as body types don't vary too much I am actually quite content with how grapple and shove works in this edition.

Exactly why shouldn't my fantasy hero be awesome enough to out grapple a Girallon or Assassin Vine?

Guess it is perfectly ok to immobilize a great enemy with magic but if you don't have magic then you can't possibly do anything awesome -_-;;;

Think the Disney movie Tarzan (wait, was it Disney?), Tarzan (SPOILER ALERT) grapples the lead garilla in order to keep him from killing the other humans. Now I don't know about you but holy hell that's awesome, something not to many humans would be able to pull off (if at all ever, but whatever). What reason would there be to keep a D&D Fighter (or Rogue or whatever) who has trained in grappling to grapple even the strongest of creatures?

silveralen

2014-11-10, 03:49 PM

Exactly why shouldn't my fantasy hero be awesome enough to out grapple a Girallon or Assassin Vine?

Guess it is perfectly ok to immobilize a great enemy with magic but if you don't have magic then you can't possibly do anything awesome -_-;;;

Think the Disney movie Tarzan (wait, was it Disney?), Tarzan (SPOILER ALERT) grapples the lead garilla in order to keep him from killing the other humans. Now I don't know about you but holy hell that's awesome, something not to many humans would be able to pull off (if at all ever, but whatever). What reason would there be to keep a D&D Fighter (or Rogue or whatever) who has trained in grappling to grapple even the strongest of creatures?

It's not a matter of strength but size. For example, imagine a human trying to grapple an elephant. How would even a strong human gain the leverage to do so? Regardless of how strong he is, attempting to hold on to said elephant will likely result in the elephant dragging/lifting him, his mass is such a small fraction of the larger creature's.

Perseus

2014-11-10, 04:21 PM

It's not a matter of strength but size. For example, imagine a human trying to grapple an elephant. How would even a strong human gain the leverage to do so? Regardless of how strong he is, attempting to hold on to said elephant will likely result in the elephant dragging/lifting him, his mass is such a small fraction of the larger creature's.

Stop getting you real world physics in my fantasy. Fantasy has nothing to do with leverage, how does a mage create a fireball from grasshopper legs and muttering some words? How do dragons fly? They fly by nonmagical means but should not be able to get the lift required for their massive forms.

You are setting a double standard, if its magic then it can break our reality but if its not magic it has to conform to our reality.

A halfling with 20 strength should be equal to a human with 20 strength and such. If you can reach the target DC you should be able to do such a feat.

I would rather have a game where players and DMs can set their own limits on what they consider fantasy instead of me imposing random rules to force them to think my way. You want the magical glass ceiling then you can have it in your game but I feel sorry for you, you limit so much in a fantasy system by doing so.

MaxWilson

2014-11-10, 04:22 PM

It's not a matter of strength but size. For example, imagine a human trying to grapple an elephant. How would even a strong human gain the leverage to do so? Regardless of how strong he is, attempting to hold on to said elephant will likely result in the elephant dragging/lifting him, his mass is such a small fraction of the larger creature's.

This is a bit of a tangent, but real-life elephants are also very, very difficult for lions to kill. From the Youtube videos I've seen, it takes a whole bunch of lions hopping up on its back, digging their teeth in, and hanging on (or falling off repeatedly) like my cats hanging on my sofa, hoping that the elephant will eventually weaken and fall over. It looks more like a grappling maneuver than like D&D-style combat. In D&D, a dozen lions would inflict 1d8+3 damage each with their teeth, and the elephant's 76 HP would evaporate in one round, and it would die.

In other words, in real life, size is far more of an advantage than D&D gives it credit for, and that's not just true for grappling.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 05:09 PM

Stop getting you real world physics in my fantasy. Fantasy has nothing to do with leverage, how does a mage create a fireball from grasshopper legs and muttering some words? How do dragons fly? They fly by nonmagical means but should not be able to get the lift required for their massive forms.

You are setting a double standard, if its magic then it can break our reality but if its not magic it has to conform to our reality.

A halfling with 20 strength should be equal to a human with 20 strength and such. If you can reach the target DC you should be able to do such a feat.

I would rather have a game where players and DMs can set their own limits on what they consider fantasy instead of me imposing random rules to force them to think my way. You want the magical glass ceiling then you can have it in your game but I feel sorry for you, you limit so much in a fantasy system by doing so.

Then rule it doesn't apply. Won't break anything. I'm just saying why it is in the game.

Also, magic literally exists to break standard rules. Non magic characters would be limited by the laws of physics. That's how every dnd group I've ever had is played. It's like playing a badass normal character in a super hero campaign. You can do so and be on par with the other characters.

It's really weird how people keep wanting to be magic without being magic in any way.

Vogonjeltz

2014-11-10, 05:20 PM

I tend to agree, although grapple does add the ability to walk about with the grappled enemy at half speed. If there's a cliff nearby, walk them over and shove them in. Or shove them prone, they can't get up with their movement set to 0.
There's some fun stuff in grappling, but I'd wait with the final verdict until I see it in action. The part I dislike about it most is how undignified it is.

Our Bardbarian dragged an opponent across the ground and stuck its face into the campfire. So that was pretty intense.

Thinking the same ththing. Then again, i guess you could stand or sit on them. I'd houserule that the grappler's motion is reduced to 0 while doing this.

I hope you mean only the grappled person yes?

Consider arm bars, and other holds that are employed in jiujitsu, which allow the user total mobility, but in which the targets range of motion is constricted.

Morukai

2014-11-10, 05:20 PM

You are setting a double standard, if its magic then it can break our reality but if its not magic it has to conform to our reality.

More like if it's magic, it can't be explained within our reality, but if it's not, we can attempt to relate it to real world physics and explanations.

I would rather have a game where players and DMs can set their own limits on what they consider fantasy instead of me imposing random rules to force them to think my way.

There's nothing "random" about the rules in D&D at all, and ANY RPG you play has to have at least some basis in reality. It has to, in order to exploit and stretch the limits of what we consider real. What would a "game where players and DMs can set their own limits on what they consider fantasy" really look like? Especially if there were no 'rules to force' anyone to 'think [their] way' at all?

Just imagine: "Oh yeah? Well I do such and such!" "No you don't. Don't try to force me to play your way." It would be an RPG disaster.

Perseus

2014-11-10, 05:44 PM

Then rule it doesn't apply. Won't break anything. I'm just saying why it is in the game.

Also, magic literally exists to break standard rules. Non magic characters would be limited by the laws of physics. That's how every dnd group I've ever had is played. It's like playing a badass normal character in a super hero campaign. You can do so and be on par with the other characters.

It's really weird how people keep wanting to be magic without being magic in any way.

You are completely missing the point, as most people do.

Magic in D&D isn't like... The real world + magic, where magic is this new thing that breaks physics. Magic is that world's physics. Just like nonmagical things being awesome can be part of its physics.

The worlds of D&D are not Earth + magic. It is D&D fantasy world X where magic is ingrained in everything. So why would you force one group to play by real world standards and not the other? What is so scary about non casters being awesome and excelling and having interesting abilities?

Saying you can't do that because you can't do that in the real world is a horrible argument when talking about a fantasy game or do you not see the double standard?

People automatically and desperately hand wave magic and yet get all bent out of shape when McFighter might do something awesome that is actually possible in the real world (watch people in full armor fighting... It is quite fluid and awesome), never mind when you talk about allowing the Mcfighter do something that breaks our real world's reality.

"A wizard did it" needs "She's just that good" to make a truly balanced game in terms of being on the same plane of fantasy. Until you allow your mind to wrap around this... You just won't get it.

It isn't like playing batman in a world where superman exist... It is like playing yourself (everything you have and can do) in a world where others get to be superman.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 06:29 PM

"A wizard did it" needs "She's just that good" to make a truly balanced game in terms of being on the same plane of fantasy. Until you allow your mind to wrap around this... You just won't get it.

It isn't like playing batman in a world where superman exist... It is like playing yourself (everything you have and can do) in a world where others get to be superman.

Just to clarify

Being able to jump onto a dragon's back, run up to it's head, and do a jumping stab into it's eye to kill it =/= awesome?

Being able to grapple said dragon = awesome?

Okay, if that's what it takes to have you enjoy the game, feel free to do so. That's not my preferred way. To each their own.

P.S. I'm pretty sure i can't kill a dragon.

Theodoxus

2014-11-10, 06:40 PM

Yup, Perseus is right - at least as far as in most fantasy ideas, magic infuses everything and is part of physics. TOB was really good in getting that across. My players were at first like 'why can this non-magical fighter teleport, or throw fire, or throw an enemy like a comet?' And it's because magic infuses everything.

But, I think where Perseus is wrong is assuming that the mundane should be as spectacular as the magical. It's akin to say, the Harry Potterverse, where the magical and muggle live together. One could say that the Potterverse is a fantasy realm where magic isn't part of the physical universe - look at the poor muggles. But I would counter that the muggles simply aren't subjected to the magical and it's veiled from their senses. As such, magic literally does things that the mundane can't - or at least, the mundane requires more ingredients. I'd argue that magical and mundane fireworks look identical exploding in the sky, but far different pre-launch.

Magic can create a telekinetic force to go elephant tipping with. The mundane can use a battering ram to the same effect. Magic can hold a wizard aloft on a cloud. The mundane can use a helicopter to the same effect. Magic can create a fireball to fry your foes. The mundane can use a flamethrower to the same effect.

Magic is faster, easier, less confining; but hardly special. Any effect or spell you can think of, mundane science can at least theorize a way to replicate it - not on the same level, not as fast, not as easy and taking a lot more resources - but it can be done.

Extrapolate that to a fantasy setting and the mundane melds with the magical - science and engineering become easier, quicker. Leverage and Force multipliers are augmented by the magic infusing all things. The Strength 20 human would be the equivalent of a strength 40 human on our world. Tipping elephants, while not trivial, at least becomes feasible. Swinging a sword over your head might heat the air to the point it ignites, launching firebolts at your enemies. Turning invisible or leaping over tall buildings is as simple as stepping into the 4th dimension or disbelieving gravity for a few seconds.

Now, the really big caveat is, if that's the game you actually want to play, 4th Ed emulates it way better than any other version of D&D. Every class gets powers. The powers can be construed however you want them to be - as mundane as chemical and physical reactions or a magical as fairy dust and a god's blessing as you want it to be.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 06:44 PM

I'll be perfectly honest, we are starting to get into stuff that's far more setting specific than rules specific. Some worlds have very strict rules about how magic actually applies. Some people may run DnD as historical fantasy. Nothing you are saying is a given, and... well to be frank it isn't the default of the default setting. Which is why the rules don't represent that. Now if your forgotten realms or your custom world operates like that, go for it.

People who do amazing things by drawing on the magic which permeates everything actually do exist in 5e... they are called monks and they can trip elephants (at least certain types can). Their fluff is actually almost exactly what you just described. So, such characters do exist, but it isn't assumed literally everyone is such a person.

Eslin

2014-11-10, 08:31 PM

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-11-10, 08:36 PM

no not really, it's just numbers in the end. I.E if fighters had double their current damage and BMs had unlimited maneuvers, they'd still be non-spellcasting martials without spelllike mechanics. They would be totes OP though.

besides, batman has trouble keeping up with superman, who is like...a god. casters arnt' gods! at least, not anymore.

Eslin

2014-11-10, 08:47 PM

no not really, it's just numbers in the end.

besides, batman has trouble keeping up with superman, who is like...a god. casters arnt' gods! at least, not anymore.

It's not just numbers though. Casters aren't strong because of their numbers, they're strong because of the things they can do. Casters and martials are about equal in combat strength, though things break by the end (foresight gives you advantage on everything and your foes disadvantage on attacks all day without concentration, true polymorph lets you permanently turn your entire party into dragons or pit fiends or whatever you feel like) - it's out of combat and in combat utility where martials fall behind. In combat a martial can (often poorly) shove, intimidate, grapple or trip, while a caster can levitate foes, create magical cages, walls of fire, mind control enemies, split the earth, summon obstacles and use any number of further ways to control what happens. Out of combat a martial can carry a lot and use the same skills casters get, while casters can raise the dead, change the weather, teleport everyone to a different continent, cause crops to grow, instantly craft items, make unfindable magical resting places and use any number of further ways to give the party an advantage.

Casters may not be gods, but martials are infantry while casters are engineering, infantry, supply, logistics, intelligence and communications all at once. Martials aren't useless any more, but they are still less useful.

MaxWilson

2014-11-10, 08:50 PM

Eslin

2014-11-10, 08:55 PM

So he's not a non-magical fighter, right?

He's no more magical than everything else is.

Hytheter

2014-11-10, 09:08 PM

TOB was really good in getting that across. My players were at first like 'why can this non-magical fighter teleport, or throw fire, or throw an enemy like a comet?' And it's because magic infuses everything.

What

Those maneuvers were explicitly magical, and were only useable by the Swordsage, who was also explicitly magical.

They don't help your case at all

JoeJ

2014-11-10, 09:32 PM

You are setting a double standard, if its magic then it can break our reality but if its not magic it has to conform to our reality.

Yes. That's why it's called "magic."

silveralen

2014-11-10, 09:38 PM

He's no more magical than everything else is.

So... everything is magic?

Then play Eldritch knight. Equally magical as normal fighter, with "cool" abilities.

It's not just numbers though. Casters aren't strong because of their numbers, they're strong because of the things they can do. Casters and martials are about equal in combat strength, though things break by the end (foresight gives you advantage on everything and your foes disadvantage on attacks all day without concentration, true polymorph lets you permanently turn your entire party into dragons or pit fiends or whatever you feel like) - it's out of combat and in combat utility where martials fall behind. In combat a martial can (often poorly) shove, intimidate, grapple or trip, while a caster can levitate foes, create magical cages, walls of fire, mind control enemies, split the earth, summon obstacles and use any number of further ways to control what happens. Out of combat a martial can carry a lot and use the same skills casters get, while casters can raise the dead, change the weather, teleport everyone to a different continent, cause crops to grow, instantly craft items, make unfindable magical resting places and use any number of further ways to give the party an advantage.

Casters may not be gods, but martials are infantry while casters are engineering, infantry, supply, logistics, intelligence and communications all at once. Martials aren't useless any more, but they are still less useful.

And?

That's the difference between a caster and a martial character. It doesn't even make them less useful unless you are lacking in imagination. You know what beats a skeleton army? The army you raised with leadership ability and trained with your combat prowess.

"Fixing" this results in idiotic things like 4e martial rituals. when the proper response is to learn to do things the old fashioned way.

Slipperychicken

2014-11-10, 09:45 PM

Are you guys complaining about being able to grapple huge creatures? It already costs a feat tax, so I'd just let them do it. If some barbarian used one of his very few feats to go around suplexing elephants and armlocking dragons, that's fine by me.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 09:47 PM

You know, maybe they should just bring back fighter getting a standing army at x level. Even though most players ignored it and eventually opted to replace said ability with something else (gladiator from dark sun or some of the abilities from player's options) because it was hugely inconvenient to actually deal with, it would allow them to have a bigger effect.

But like I said, literally one guy in my entire 2nd edition history actually enjoyed and heavily used that aspect. Because, honestly, everyone I've played with who enjoyed fighter liked to be a mundane guy who was really good with a sword and had an array of mundane skills which he excelled at.

Are you guys complaining about being able to grapple huge creatures? It already costs a feat tax, so I'd just let them do it. If some barbarian used one of his very few feats to go around suplexing elephants and armlocking dragons, that's fine by me.

Err.. there is no feat to allow it. There used to be a feat tax to grapple large characters, but it was removed (and the description of the grappler feat wasn't changed to reflect it).

Perseus

2014-11-10, 09:54 PM

It isn't that limits are particularly bad, just limits based on real world physics really really hurt a setting. Especially if you hand wave one system within the world and are very stringent with the other.

Basically... Batman and Superman may be on different power levels but Batman gets to play in the same world under the same rules (he gets money items + plot and superman gets alien power + plot) where they both can disbelieve real world physics and abilities (seriously, batman totally slips into N deminsion sometimes in order not to be shot... Oh wait he he is just that good).

Slipperychicken

2014-11-10, 10:00 PM

Jakinbandw

2014-11-10, 10:00 PM

Err.. there is no feat to allow it. There used to be a feat tax to grapple large characters, but it was removed (and the description of the grappler feat wasn't changed to reflect it).

I would say that in this case RAI are pretty obvious here. The feat was writtin to let you you grapple large creatures but they didn't word it correctly. That said by RAW you are right, at least until errata comes out which will hopefully fix the wording.

MaxWilson

2014-11-10, 10:12 PM

You know, maybe they should just bring back fighter getting a standing army at x level. Even though most players ignored it and eventually opted to replace said ability with something else (gladiator from dark sun or some of the abilities from player's options) because it was hugely inconvenient to actually deal with, it would allow them to have a bigger effect.

I'd be fine with that. The advantage of skeleton armies is not, or at least should not be, that they are more powerful than armies of actual soldiers. The advantage is that you get to ignore logistics. No food, no pay, no subordinates to keep happy, no pensions, no funeral expenses, just hordes of kill.

Going a bit further, I'd argue that high-level adventurers should often have a squad or even a company of minions with them on some adventures, even if they are waiting offstage at the front gates while the PCs sneak in the back way. How much sense does it really make for the king to charge them with a vital mission and not give them at least an escort of soldiers to make sure the job gets done safely? Maybe your plan for killing the dragon is less about "smack it to death with my sword" and more about "weaken it and get it to charge out the front gate, too angry and intent on me and my fellow adventurers to notice the 200 crossbow quarrels headed its way until 15% of them have embedded themselves in the dragon's scaley hide." Without the adventurers the plan wouldn't work, but without the troops in hiding, the plan wouldn't work either.

That's how I would fight a dragon anyway.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 10:21 PM

I would say that in this case RAI are pretty obvious here. The feat was writtin to let you you grapple large creatures but they didn't word it correctly. That said by RAW you are right, at least until errata comes out which will hopefully fix the wording.

Well, the thing is you can grapple large creatures without a feat (assuming medium player race). So the feat isn't needed for that purpose.

It isn't that limits are particularly bad, just limits based on real world physics really really hurt a setting. Especially if you hand wave one system within the world and are very stringent with the other.

I don't hand wave one, but the two have different limitations.

Martial characters are awesome but limited somewhat by reality. Again, grapple a dragon is no, jump on it's back to stab it is yes. You may have to improvise new stunts if your preferred one won't work on dragons, but unless it is along the lines of "I want to make a roll to instantly kill it" or "I want to make a persuasion roll to convince it I am it's son" or "I want to grab the dragon and prevent it from moving despite tit's mass and strength both being drastically larger than mine" I'll probably give you a skill to roll and a benefit for succeeding.

I mean, should I allow persuasion rolls to convince anyone of anything on a natural 20? if I don't allow that, regardless of how absurd the matter is, am I arbitrarily limiting skill users?

Magic has limitations as well, which I don't hand wave. I don't let them maintain multiple concentration spells. i don't let them cast more than their daily amount of spells. If a creature can autosucceed on failed saves with a high natural bonus... well sucks for the caster tossing save or suck spells at them. Same with advantage vs spells, or resistance. Some enemies are going to be a problem due to their nature, be you warrior or mage.

Hytheter

2014-11-10, 10:21 PM

I probably wouldn't allow grapples to stop a whole dragon from moving, but I would allow you to grab it's wings and prevent it from flying.

I would say that in this case RAI are pretty obvious here. The feat was writtin to let you you grapple large creatures but they didn't word it correctly.

You can Grapple large creatures without the feat anyway.
There used to be a rule that Large Creatures could escape grapples without a check, and the feat could prevent that that. The rule was later removed, but they forgot to remove that part of the Grappler feat.

Eslin

2014-11-10, 10:24 PM

And?

That's the difference between a caster and a martial character. It doesn't even make them less useful unless you are lacking in imagination. You know what beats a skeleton army? The army you raised with leadership ability and trained with your combat prowess.

"Fixing" this results in idiotic things like 4e martial rituals. when the proper response is to learn to do things the old fashioned way.

Except a caster can raise such an army as easily as a martial character can (training them yourself is unlikely in the extreme). More easily, likely, since many more casters want high charisma than martials. You can't say that martials are equal to casters because they can do things like that, since casters can do them too - the entire reason casters have greater utility is both martials and casters can achieve the same non rules based things like raising an army and on top of that casters can do a huge pile of things martials can't, while martials have no out of combat utility and very little in combat variety.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 10:25 PM

I probably wouldn't allow grapples to stop a whole dragon from moving, but I would allow you to grab it's wings and prevent it from flying.

Yep, that'd make sense. Heck, I'd allow you to chop at it's wings to remove/lessen it's ability to fly, given that's an almost classic tactic when dealing with flying creatures.

Except a caster can raise such an army as easily as a martial character can (training them yourself is unlikely in the extreme). More easily, likely, since many more casters want high charisma than martials. You can't say that martials are equal to casters because they can do things like that, since casters can do them too - the entire reason casters have greater utility is both martials and casters can achieve the same non rules based things like raising an army and on top of that casters can do a huge pile of things martials can't, while martials have no out of combat utility and very little in combat variety.

Why on earth would a bunch of people follow a wizard leading an army? What does he know about fighting? As opposed to the person who is trained fighter and survivor of hundreds of engagements?

This is the great thing about not arbitrarily ignoring reality, it actually causes thing to make sense.

Hytheter

2014-11-10, 10:34 PM

I'd probably also house rule that you can grapple Huge or larger creatures (large or larger if you're small), but instead of holding them down, you hold onto them. They can move freely, but you have advantage on attacks against them and they have disadvantage against you. Or maybe just one or the other. So instead of imposing control you put yourself in a better position. Checks to escape the grapple just represent throwing you off.

Eslin

2014-11-10, 10:35 PM

Why on earth would a bunch of people follow a wizard leading an army? What does he know about fighting? As opposed to the person who is trained fighter and survivor of hundreds of engagements?

This is the great thing about not arbitrarily ignoring reality, it actually causes thing to make sense.

You're... kidding, right? What he knows about fighting is he's a great and powerful wizard, same reason people trusted Gandalf. A bunch of people would follow a wizard because they'd be all 'wow, this guy is incredibly smart and powerful, he must be a great commander. He's a mighty wizard, I bet he can use magic to know what our enemies are doing and to find out the best course of action!'. And they'd be absolutely correct, he would. The best general isn't the guy who is best at hitting things with a stick, the best general is the incredibly intelligent person who is an amazing planner.

I'm not the one arbitrarily ignoring reality here. Unless you're leading a bunch of orcs, being the best at hitting things with sticks does not impress people with your leadership qualities.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 10:40 PM

You're... kidding, right? What he knows about fighting is he's a great and powerful wizard, same reason people trusted Gandalf. A bunch of people would follow a wizard because they'd be all 'wow, this guy is incredibly smart and powerful, he must be a great commander. He's a mighty wizard, I bet he can use magic to know what our enemies are doing and to find out the best course of action!'. And they'd be absolutely correct, he would. The best general isn't the guy who is best at hitting things with a stick, the best general is the incredibly intelligent person who is an amazing planner.

I'm not the one arbitrarily ignoring reality here. Unless you're leading a bunch of orcs, being the best at hitting things with sticks does not impress people with your leadership qualities.

Oh that's why he would have a magical advisor, but the person who actually understands strategy and combat would be in charge of the armies. Kind of like we don't have the drone surveillance operators lead the army, despite them having unparalleled ability to scout the battle field and being smart people overall. That's not what they are trained for. Neither are wizards. But a professional soldier? Yep. Like I said, fighters literally gained an army via leveling in earlier editions, knowing about battlefield strategy and tactics is part of the class.

Eslin

2014-11-10, 10:44 PM

Oh that's why he would have a magical advisor, but the person who actually understands strategy and combat would be in charge of the armies. Kind of like we don't have the drone surveillance operators lead the army, despite them having unparalleled ability to scout the battle field and being smart people overall. That's not what they are trained for. Neither are wizards. But a professional soldier? Yep. Like I said, fighters literally gained an army via leveling in earlier editions, knowing about battlefield strategy and tactics is part of the class.

Earlier editions aren't this one, and battlefield strategy has nothing to do with being a fighter in D&D who typically operate in small groups in unusual tactical situations. An average fighter has no more training or experience at leading an army than a wizard does, and of the two the wizard (int 20) has far better potential for tactical/strategic ability than the fighter (int 10) does.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 11:13 PM

Earlier editions aren't this one, and battlefield strategy has nothing to do with being a fighter in D&D who typically operate in small groups in unusual tactical situations. An average fighter has no more training or experience at leading an army than a wizard does, and of the two the wizard (int 20) has far better potential for tactical/strategic ability than the fighter (int 10) does.

Whose to say? I always assumed a certainly amount of strategy and tactics was part and parcel of the basic training to be a fighter, and overtime he picks up more and more.

This edition has Wizards whose adventures cause them to have spontaneous burst of insight into magic which allow them to put new spells in their spell book, allowing fighter to extrapolate his combat encounters to a wider variety of situations hardly breaks the narrative.

The wizard has a higher bonus, but I'd have the fighter would add his prof modifier to any roll involving war. Meaning the wizard could possibly match the fighter in strategy, but couldn't do as well at actually commanding them on the field or anticipating the enemies strategies (cha and wis respectively). If the fighter already happens to haev prof in the relvant skill (history, persuasion, and insight) well he gets to multiply it.

Is this in the book? Nope. But their aren't any rules involving this sort of conflict, so I don't see why it would be an issue. Things outside the scope fo the written rules are typically left to the DM. Or did you just want to complain about how fighters were discriminated against unfairly while trying to shut down any attempt to if it that didn't involve giving them literal magic?

This is a perfectly reasonable way of giving fighter more narrative power yet still leaving him mundane.

Eslin

2014-11-10, 11:17 PM

Whose to say? I always assumed a certainly amount of strategy and tactics was part and parcel of the basic training to be a fighter, and overtime he picks up more and more.

This edition has Wizards who adventure have spontaneous burst of insight into magic which allow them to ut new spells in their spell book, allowing fighter to extrapolate his combat encounters to a wider variety of situations hardly breaks the narrative.

The wizard has a higher bonus, but I'd have the fighter would add his prof modifier to any roll involving war. Meaning the wizard could possibly match the fighter in strategy, but couldn't do as well at actually commanding them on the field or anticipating the enemies strategies (cha and wis respectively). If the fighter already happens to haev prof in the relvant skill (history, persuasion, and insight) well he gets to multiply it.

Is this in the book? Nope. But their aren't any rules involving this sort of conflict, so I don't see why it would be an issue. Things outside the scope fo the written rules are typically left to the DM. Or did you just want to complain about how fighters were discriminated against unfairly while trying to shut down any attempt to if it that didn't involve giving them literal magic?

This is a perfectly reasonable way of giving fighter more narrative power yet still leaving him mundane.

Well, you'd be wrong. All of those are your personal house rules - if you want military knowledge take the soldier background, which a wizard can do as easily as a fighter can. Strategy and tactics have nothing to do with fighter, which is based around martial prowess - until they release the warlord, no class has innate strategic or tactical knowledge. Which is fine, that's the kind of thing handlable through roleplay or skills, but pretending it's an invisible feature of the fighter class (but not of the wizard class) is silly.

That you personally houseruled a bunch of abilities onto the fighter does not mean fighters have equal utility to wizards.

silveralen

2014-11-10, 11:36 PM

Well, you'd be wrong. All of those are your personal house rules - if you want military knowledge take the soldier background, which a wizard can do as easily as a fighter can. Strategy and tactics have nothing to do with fighter, which is based around martial prowess - until they release the warlord, no class has innate strategic or tactical knowledge. Which is fine, that's the kind of thing handlable through roleplay or skills, but pretending it's an invisible feature of the fighter class (but not of the wizard class) is silly.

That you personally houseruled a bunch of abilities onto the fighter does not mean fighters have equal utility to wizards.

But does it mean they could have that sort of utility without having access to magic?

Eslin

2014-11-10, 11:51 PM

But does it mean they could have that sort of utility without having access to magic?

It means everyone has the same base level of utility (skills, roleplaying) and on top of that casters get a huge pile of in and out of combat utility martials have no access to. There is a sharp lack of things martials can do which casters can't imitate, while there is an entire 1/3 of the PHB dedicated to things casters get access to which martials don't.

silveralen

2014-11-11, 12:24 AM

It means everyone has the same base level of utility (skills, roleplaying) and on top of that casters get a huge pile of in and out of combat utility martials have no access to. There is a sharp lack of things martials can do which casters can't imitate, while there is an entire 1/3 of the PHB dedicated to things casters get access to which martials don't.

So... you were just complaining? Since you vehemently oppose any attempt to fix it you obviously like it as such.

Or is this somehow saying the only way to fix it is to... let people grapple giants and dragons? Unlike say... expanding their skills, giving them better skills than casters? Or is there some reason tinkering with one set of rules is okay, but not another?

I'm just trying to see your point, I just think I'm missing something.

Perseus

2014-11-11, 09:35 AM

This is one of the problems when you allow magic to do whatever it wants but you restrain non magic to real world physics...

Why the hell would anyone follow a fighter into battle? Screw that, I want the guy that can turn into a *insert awesome monster*, ask a god for help, or something other that is fantastic.

From a narrative point of view it makes no sense for armies not to fall in line with magic users... Not only can they do fantastic things but there is more of a sense of security. The common folk may distrust magic but warriors and stuff? They would back the person with the biggest stick and that big stick is the casters.

3.5 always bugged me because there is no reason and no way within the rules that casters, even unoptimized ones, wouldn't be ruling the world by default. Hell, one thing humans are good at is improving on things, you would think that the d&d world humans would improve so far with magic, or how it is managed, that there would be no need for anything else.

Vintrastorm

2014-11-11, 10:24 AM

Also, if non-magic users "extraordinary feats" (as in stuff you do, not feats you take) always follow some kind of rule about it not being possible because "in real world physics..." then I'm more impressed/troubled/confounded by the level 20 fighter who can fire 8 crossbowbolts (with a feat) with a light (or heavy?) crossbow in 6 seconds, while in the real world (according to wikipedia, an article on BBC and some other stuff found by googling) 8 crossbow bolts in a minute would be extremely hard, if not almost impossible.

If this can be allowed but wrestling down a Giant, or a Dragon, cannot, I'd simply refer to my "magical mythical legendary belt of extraordinary wrestling and grappling feats" that was given to me from a very thrustworthy Kender who'd gotten it from Talos himself.

That being said, some creatures should really have an improved athletics/grapple score.

MaxWilson

2014-11-11, 10:39 AM

Also, if non-magic users "extraordinary feats" (as in stuff you do, not feats you take) always follow some kind of rule about it not being possible because "in real world physics..." then I'm more impressed/troubled/confounded by the level 20 fighter who can fire 8 crossbowbolts (with a feat) with a light (or heavy?) crossbow in 6 seconds, while in the real world (according to wikipedia, an article on BBC and some other stuff found by googling) 8 crossbow bolts in a minute would be extremely hard, if not almost impossible.

I don't know about crossbows, but this guy shoots 10 arrows in 5 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g#t=68

He re-invented the technique after reading old books about Saracen archers. Other people said the books were wrong and shooting that fast was impossible, but it turns out they were wrong.

Gurka

2014-11-11, 10:42 AM

3.5 always bugged me because there is no reason and no way within the rules that casters, even unoptimized ones, wouldn't be ruling the world by default. Hell, one thing humans are good at is improving on things, you would think that the d&d world humans would improve so far with magic, or how it is managed, that there would be no need for anything else.

This is a very setting dependent assumption. It ask depends on the prevalence of magic users in general, as well as the general caster levels of those that are present.

If magic is everywhere, and the janitors use cantrips to sweep the streets, then yeah mages would rule the world.

If every person is capable of learning to wield magic, then that's simply the bulk of what military academies would teach.

If magic is common but not universal, then battles would likely come down to wizards countering eachother until the fighting men who follow them are able to kill eachother. The ones who are left then murder the wizard who is being actively counter spelled and no longer defended. Victory becomes dependent on two things: which caster is most successful at keeping the other from throwing the big spells, and which group of soldiers needs their caster to buy them less time.

If magic is extremely rare, then it's entirely possible that even high level wizard would operate in hiding. They may be able to kill hundreds of average fighting men, but a posse of high level fighters and rogues (who would be much more common in a very low magic setting) will give any wizard pause, and may outright kill him. I don't have my book in front of me, but I don't remember how good alarm spells and such are this edition. If a rogue can sneak by, well, even a wizard gotta sleep sometime.

silveralen

2014-11-11, 10:45 AM

This is one of the problems when you allow magic to do whatever it wants but you restrain non magic to real world physics...

Why the hell would anyone follow a fighter into battle? Screw that, I want the guy that can turn into a *insert awesome monster*, ask a god for help, or something other that is fantastic.

From a narrative point of view it makes no sense for armies not to fall in line with magic users... Not only can they do fantastic things but there is more of a sense of security. The common folk may distrust magic but warriors and stuff? They would back the person with the biggest stick and that big stick is the casters.

Which is why you'd give the class bonuses when doing so. Then the troops know they have a better chance of succeeding. Justified because the fighter is trained leader of men, who has spent time learning about combat in all it's forms while the caster spent time studying the mysteries of magic. You represent that study with mechanical bonuses for doing so.

Daishain

2014-11-11, 11:34 AM

I don't know about crossbows, but this guy shoots 10 arrows in 5 seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g#t=68

He re-invented the technique after reading old books about Saracen archers. Other people said the books were wrong and shooting that fast was impossible, but it turns out they were wrong.
High speed standard bow shooting is indeed quite possible. High speed crossbow shooting? Not so much, not unless you've got a reload mechanism that would be quite out of place in D&D's tech level, unless powered by magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs

skip to 2:20 to avoid the fluff. The gist of it is, when comparing one of the fastest reloading crossbows (handspan, probably about equivalent to D&D's light crossbow) to one of the slowest reloading standard bows (longbow), the longbow still beat the handspan on speed, firing nearly twice as quickly. (and their demonstration guy could have fired the longbow much faster than he did)Your saracen archer guy would have been firing about 17 times as fast as the handspan.

Vintrastorm

2014-11-11, 12:32 PM

High speed crossbow shooting? Not so much, not unless you've got a reload mechanism that would be quite out of place in D&D's tech level, unless powered by magic.

Regarding technology:
Actually, this is IMO a common misconception since repeating crossbows (according to wikipedia) existed long before the real world "middle ages/medieval times" that fantasy settings generally adhere to. :smallsmile:

"The Chinese repeating crossbow, Chu Ko Nu, is a handheld crossbow that accomplishes the task with a magazine containing a number of bolts on top."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow

"The weapon was extremely easy to manufacture and use, and, in the hands of a trained soldier, could easily launch ten bolts in fifteen seconds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

Also, automatic Crossbows were part of the 3.5 core (allowing users to use their full attacks).

Mikeavelli

2014-11-11, 12:39 PM

I probably wouldn't allow grapples to stop a whole dragon from moving, but I would allow you to grab it's wings and prevent it from flying.

So, it is time for the return of... LOS TIBURON! (http://i.imgur.com/I69beX1.jpg)

Knaight

2014-11-11, 01:07 PM

Except normals don't keep up with other characters. The famous example is batman, but he rolled ridiculously high in every attribute and is a billionaire - and still can't really keep up past a certain point.
We've seen it before, if you impose limits based on what is 'physically possible' to martials in a magical world then they fall behind.

It isn't that limits are particularly bad, just limits based on real world physics really really hurt a setting. Especially if you hand wave one system within the world and are very stringent with the other.

They only fall behind if the magic is allowed to get sufficiently out of hand, and limits based on real world physics work just fine for a lot of things. Genre convention demands that specific things be waived in specific cases (e.g. excessively large creatures, particularly those that fly), but that hardly means that everything needs to go.

Martials fall behind in 5e because the magic still gets pretty ridiculously varied, and comes at low cost. Remove either of those things, and the issue goes away.

JoeJ

2014-11-11, 01:13 PM

Perseus

2014-11-11, 01:37 PM

They only fall behind if the magic is allowed to get sufficiently out of hand, and limits based on real world physics work just fine for a lot of things. Genre convention demands that specific things be waived in specific cases (e.g. excessively large creatures, particularly those that fly), but that hardly means that everything needs to go.

Martials fall behind in 5e because the magic still gets pretty ridiculously varied, and comes at low cost. Remove either of those things, and the issue goes away.

The original discussion was that I was saying it is a double standard in D&D that "a wizard did it" is perfectly ok but "she/he is just that good" is badwrongfun.

People judge non-casters based on real world physics but base wizards on... Well nothing. The magic users can do anything they want and people don't blink an eye in a fantasy setting... But in the same fantasy setting if a 20 strength human grapples a huge monster then it is badwrongfun because it goes against what people can do in the real world... Which, and I'm sorry if I'm missing something here, is exactly what fantasy is all about, that is doing stuff that is normally not possible.

This double standard limits what a fantasy game can offer. In specific setting do what you want, but base rules shouldn't encourage this double standard.

Perseus

2014-11-11, 01:38 PM

But do martials really fall behind? I haven't seen very many complaints about that happening in play.

They can kill stuff but they don't get to be fantasy, well not very fantasy, unless they have magic.

They fall behind based on narrative and cool crap* they can do.

*didn't mean to curse haha just comes out easily.

silveralen

2014-11-11, 01:52 PM

Again, I have yet to find any of that true. Nor do I see how allowing someone to grab a dragon's leg would fix it. It's not like grappling a dragon is exciting in and of itself, it's only cool based on the player's narrative.

Compare "I grapple the dragon, *roll*, well now he is restrained" to the above luchador. See the difference? It's not a matter of mechanics, but narrative, which make a character cool.

If someone told me they wanted to do what the above did? Of course I would allow at least the attempt. If someone told me they wanted to grab the dragon's leg with one hand and hold it in place while hitting it? No, it's both boring and implausible, while the former is neither.

Knaight

2014-11-11, 02:37 PM

But do martials really fall behind? I haven't seen very many complaints about that happening in play.

Most play sticks to the lower levels where it happens a lot less, which would explain the dearth of complaints.

Perseus

2014-11-11, 02:50 PM

JoeJ

2014-11-11, 02:52 PM

They can kill stuff but they don't get to be fantasy, well not very fantasy, unless they have magic.

They fall behind based on narrative and cool crap* they can do.

*didn't mean to curse haha just comes out easily.

So your complaint is that there are a few subclasses that don't use magic? Out of twelve classes, there are still three that don't have some kind of magic in every single subclass?

When I read the skills, feats, and battle master maneuvers in the PHB, I see lots of very cool &!@# that my fighter can do without magic, and without changing the rules at all. I really don't see her falling behind on either narrative or coolness.

Perseus

2014-11-11, 03:04 PM

So your complaint is that there are a few subclasses that don't use magic? Out of twelve classes, there are still three that don't have some kind of magic in every single subclass?

When I read the skills, feats, and battle master maneuvers in the PHB, I see lots of very cool &!@# that my fighter can do without magic, and without changing the rules at all. I really don't see her falling behind on either narrative or coolness.

What? No.

My problem is the double standard that is set against non magical abilities and classes when compared to magical stuff.

Non magic is allowed to swing swordz hard and a lot but that is about all they are allowed to do before people's minds are blown.

The battle master fighter is a huge offender of this, "oooh I get to play by real world rules! Yaaaay" /sarcasm.

Just because it breaks real world physics doesn't mean its magical. Hint: Dragons flying and giants not dying due to physical limitations of their bodies.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-11-11, 03:28 PM

Non magic is allowed to swing swordz hard and a lot but that is about all they are allowed to do before people's minds are blown.

the grapple rules are kinda abusable, which is why peoples minds are blown. But it's not a big deal if you go suplex medium or large sized critters. OTOH 'grappling' dragons - besides being against RAW - is utterly implausible and breaks the narrative. now if you want to climb on the dragon and hold its jaw shut...

I mean. Hercules hisself didn't go wrasslin no dragons. He topped out at Large critters.

JoeJ

2014-11-11, 03:31 PM

What? No.

My problem is the double standard that is set against non magical abilities and classes when compared to magical stuff.

Non magic is allowed to swing swordz hard and a lot but that is about all they are allowed to do before people's minds are blown.

The battle master fighter is a huge offender of this, "oooh I get to play by real world rules! Yaaaay" /sarcasm.

Just because it breaks real world physics doesn't mean its magical. Hint: Dragons flying and giants not dying due to physical limitations of their bodies.

The double standard you talk about is a feature, not a bug. If there's no difference between magic and non-magic, then the word "magic" doesn't mean anything.

It's not physics that stops PCs from grappling dragons, but verisimilitude. People who know what normal wrestling skill is able to do can extrapolate to what a supremely skilled fantasy wrestler could plausibly do. This is true even in genres with different rules of physics, like four-color superhero: Batman or Captain America, for example, would not be able to grapple a dragon the size of a city bus. They might, however, use their acrobatic skill to fight on top of it, just like a D&D character with high DEX and proficiency in Acrobatics might do. It's not any less cool than the Hulk grappling with the monster, it's just cool in a different, non-magical way.

silveralen

2014-11-11, 03:37 PM

You are using plausible based on real world physics in a game where that dragon can fly without aid of machines or magic...

Stop using double standards.

It isn't a double standard it's literally what your character is able to do. STR 20 characters aren't even supernaturally strong going by the lift/carry values.

The double standard you talk about is a feature, not a bug. If there's no difference between magic and non-magic, then the word "magic" doesn't mean anything.

It's not physics that stops PCs from grappling dragons, but verisimilitude. People who know what normal wrestling skill is able to do can extrapolate to what a supremely skilled fantasy wrestler could plausibly do. This is true even in genres with different rules of physics, like four-color superhero: Batman or Captain America, for example, would not be able to grapple a dragon the size of a city bus. They might, however, use their acrobatic skill to fight on top of it, just like a D&D character with high DEX and proficiency in Acrobatics might do. It's not any less cool than the Hulk grappling with the monster, it's just cool in a different, non-magical way.

Thank you for describing it better than I could.

Mikeavelli

2014-11-11, 07:45 PM

Yeah, but Grappling two dragons (one in each hand!) would be awesome.

I'm a really big fan of fighter-types having nice things, especially when it doesn't mechanically unbalance the game. The caster classes still have the chance to stunlock huge creatures with spells, with a lot less risk involved, and without paying a huge opportunity cost during character creation.

Perseus

2014-11-11, 11:25 PM

The double standard you talk about is a feature, not a bug. If there's no difference between magic and non-magic, then the word "magic" doesn't mean anything.

It's not physics that stops PCs from grappling dragons, but verisimilitude. People who know what normal wrestling skill is able to do can extrapolate to what a supremely skilled fantasy wrestler could plausibly do. This is true even in genres with different rules of physics, like four-color superhero: Batman or Captain America, for example, would not be able to grapple a dragon the size of a city bus. They might, however, use their acrobatic skill to fight on top of it, just like a D&D character with high DEX and proficiency in Acrobatics might do. It's not any less cool than the Hulk grappling with the monster, it's just cool in a different, non-magical way.

{ scrubbed }

Why must the games core rules have such a huge bug? This is definitely a bug. When you limit an area of fantasy to such a high degree you stop so much from being possible by the game, that is just disgusting. Fantasy isn't about limiting, but about expanding on what is real and making new things possible. My stance is that the core rules of D&D should allow for fantastical things to be used by both magic classes and non magical classes. If a group wishes to limit their game then that is their deal, but to start with a game that already says "no you can't do this" based on a double standard severly limits fantasy and we get the same old dry crap that we had before.

Doesn't anyone else find it a bit weird that we have the same issue in 3.5 and 5e? Sure nonmagical users can kill things (they have never had problems with killing things by swinging metal sticks) but they don't get to be fantasy unless they use magic. 5e is going down the same road as 3.5 and that is pretty sad. 5e has done a good job at allowing nonmagical classes to keep up with the game, however they did the same problem as they did in 4e.

Instead of bringing nonmagical classes up to everyone else, they brought everyone else down to the nonmagical classes. In 4e they brought magic classes down and now in 5e they brought the game down. In both cases they essentially did the exact opposite of what they should have done.

{ scrubbed }

JoeJ

2014-11-11, 11:29 PM

Perseus

2014-11-11, 11:48 PM

It's just too bad that fighters can't do cool things without magic. Even if they're high level with a 20 Dex, proficiency in acrobatics and athletics, and feats like Athletic, Lucky, and Sharpshooter, they're still stuck just having to do boring stuff like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMjkfZ3q8tE).

Funny enough, LotR is one of the reasons we have this issue in D&D. That bunch of crappy writing has done more harm to the fantasy genre than anything else.

Funny also, all 6 items there are not class abilities at all. Now compare actual class features of the non-casters to the class features of the casters. Feats are optional and anyone can get 20 Dex. Anyone can also pick up those skills.

Real special and awesome! Youu could do all that by giving a commoner those feats and stats... A heroric fantasy fighter shouldn't be compared to a commoner that easily.

The fighter's main abilities is they get to swing a metal stick lots of times... Wooooo sooo fantasy!

Edit

Doesn't it just blow your mind that they can swing a metal stick 3 times in 6 second??? Like holy crap that is so fantasy!!!!!

JoeJ

2014-11-12, 12:06 AM

Funny enough, LotR is one of the reasons we have this issue in D&D. That bunch of crappy writing has done more harm to the fantasy genre than anything else.

Funny also, all 6 items there are not class abilities at all. Now compare actual class features of the non-casters to the class features of the casters. Feats are optional and anyone can get 20 Dex. Anyone can also pick up those skills.

Real special and awesome! Youu could do all that by giving a commoner those feats and stats... A heroric fantasy fighter shouldn't be compared to a commoner that easily.

The fighter's main abilities is they get to swing a metal stick lots of times... Wooooo sooo fantasy!

So your complaint is that even though fighters can do cool and awesome things, it's still bad because they have to do them with ability checks and feats rather than class features (even though fighters get extra ability increases/feats as a class feature)? It only counts if they do their cool, awesome things using one specific section of the rules?

EugeneVoid

2014-11-12, 12:10 AM

{scrubbed}

If magic is common but not universal, then battles would likely come down to wizards countering eachother until the fighting men who follow them are able to kill eachother. The ones who are left then murder the wizard who is being actively counter spelled and no longer defended. Victory becomes dependent on two things: which caster is most successful at keeping the other from throwing the big spells, and which group of soldiers needs their caster to buy them less time.

If magic is extremely rare, then it's entirely possible that even high level wizard would operate in hiding. They may be able to kill hundreds of average fighting men, but a posse of high level fighters and rogues (who would be much more common in a very low magic setting) will give any wizard pause, and may outright kill him. I don't have my book in front of me, but I don't remember how good alarm spells and such are this edition. If a rogue can sneak by, well, even a wizard gotta sleep sometime.

This is probably about right. In 5e, there is not nearly as much as imbalance as their was in earlier editions. Mostly, because of how concentration spells work. It goes from the first to the latter as you level up. Fighters and other "martials" will almost always be useful in 5e. The complaint here is that wizards and other casters get to get, without some Oberoni, cool stuf to do out of combat and in warfare situations as they get higher level. Wizards can suggestion leaders, build walls of stone, magic mouths, etc. This isn't as much as 3.5e, but Fighters don't get zip.

Anything a fighter can do, a caster can also, pretty much the exact same.
The difference is that casters get spells.

JoeJ

2014-11-12, 12:31 AM

silveralen

2014-11-12, 01:32 AM

{scrubbed}

The point wasn't this didn't exist, merely that it isn't a problem that can only be solved by allowing non casters to act beyond the bound sf physics. By giving non magical classes greater access to mundane skills, and greater expertise, they can show off in their own unique way.

Does 5e do this? Not as well as I'd like. But the point still stands that it can be done, and without breaking verisimilitude.

Talakeal

2014-11-12, 01:39 AM

Personally I don't think there should be any size restriction on grappling. If you have the STR score to overcome something which is significantly larger than you (and presumably with a corresponding STR increase of its own) go for it. I know I have been unable to extricate myself from the grasp of crabs who are less than a hundredth my size, at least temporarily.

Also, I really wish people would stop talking about people "swinging sticks". It is such a dismissive attitude toward both real life physical accomplishment as well as warriors in a broad swathe of fiction that it makes it really hard for me to take whatever point they were trying to illustrate seriously. After all, no one would like it if I referred to magical characters as "old men in bath robes shouting gibberish".

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-11-12, 01:58 AM

Personally I don't think there should be any size restriction on grappling. If you have the STR score to overcome something which is significantly larger than you (and presumably with a corresponding STR increase of its own) go for it. I know I have been unable to extricate myself from the grasp of crabs who are less than a hundredth my size, at least temporarily.

Grappling isn't holding on to something, it's physically dominating something. It may be difficult to break a crabs grip but the crustacean is not going to haul you up and down the beach.

The problem with the STR scores is that it's not really a matter of STR scores. Grappling is a skill check. A grappling character can relatively easy stack on enough bonuses to have a better roll modifier than a dragon.

Talakeal

2014-11-12, 02:06 AM

Funny enough, LotR is one of the reasons we have this issue in D&D. That bunch of crappy writing has done more harm to the fantasy genre than anything else.

I imagine fantasy would be more or less unrecognizable if Tolkien had never come along. While I agree that his writing leaves a lot to be desired, the work he put into world building is truly inspirational and influential.

Might I ask you to elaborate on what exactly it is that you think he has done to harm D&D or fantasy in general?

Grappling isn't holding on to something, it's physically dominating something. It may be difficult to break a crabs grip but the crustacean is not going to haul you up and down the beach.

The problem with the STR scores is that it's not really a matter of STR scores. Grappling is a skill check. A grappling character can relatively easy stack on enough bonuses to have a better roll modifier than a dragon.

Yeah, they screwed up on a lot of the specifics. In 3E it is too easy too get ridiculous numbers, and in 5E the numbers are just plain too low and the d20 is king. But conceptually I don't have a problem with it.

Also, it really could help to distinguish between something that has latched onto you and won't let go versus something which is holding you in place, but AFAIK no edition of D&D has really made that distinction.

silveralen

2014-11-12, 02:20 AM

Might I ask you to elaborate on what exactly it is that you think he has done to harm D&D or fantasy in general?

Given that he is one of, if not the, primary influence of DnD, it probably wouldn't even exist without him.

o by that standard every bad part is technically his fault.

Vogonjeltz

2014-11-12, 03:13 AM

{scrubbed}

This is probably about right. In 5e, there is not nearly as much as imbalance as their was in earlier editions. Mostly, because of how concentration spells work. It goes from the first to the latter as you level up. Fighters and other "martials" will almost always be useful in 5e. The complaint here is that wizards and other casters get to get, without some Oberoni, cool stuf to do out of combat and in warfare situations as they get higher level. Wizards can suggestion leaders, build walls of stone, magic mouths, etc. This isn't as much as 3.5e, but Fighters don't get zip.

Anything a fighter can do, a caster can also, pretty much the exact same.
The difference is that casters get spells.

They can't get all their abilities back via a short rest...

I also don't see a way for them to shove someone off a wall, move 5 feet, shove another guy off the wall, move 10 more feet to throw another guy off a wall, and finally move 15 feet to punt that last guy off a wall in one turn.

There may be some interesting method for a wizard to do that, but I'm not seeing it.

To take this thread back on topic, I find the grappling rules to be intrinsically reasonable, the disconcering thing to me was that grappling an enemy doesn't really impede their ability to continue attacking (in the same way that disarming without knocking the weapon away, or tripping an enemy that you don't plan on moving/moving away from in a 1v1 fight, doesn't actually have an effect).

Much of the tactical use of these abilities relies on either multiple attackers working in tandem, or a single attacker who has multiple attacks available to them.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 03:49 AM

They can't get all their abilities back via a short rest...

I also don't see a way for them to shove someone off a wall, move 5 feet, shove another guy off the wall, move 10 more feet to throw another guy off a wall, and finally move 15 feet to punt that last guy off a wall in one turn.

There may be some interesting method for a wizard to do that, but I'm not seeing it.

The disconcerting thing to me was that grappling an enemy doesn't really impede their ability to continue attacking

Off the top of my head, and only counting pure wizard (no eldritch blasting four people back with no save):

Gust of wind (knock them off the end unless it's a really long wall, or angle it about 15 degrees off the wall so you can push them all off).
Summon a bunch of creatures and have them do it.
Have Bigby's hand do it (as a bonus action, so you use it to make sure anyone who didn't get gotten with a different method is off.
Mass suggestion, suggest that you're an ultra powerful wizard and will probably kill them so they should take their chances jumping off the wall.
Have your army of skeletons toss them off.
Use telekinesis, toss people at each other to knock them all off.
Cast wall of ice/fire/force/stone/whatever along the top of the wall, which will displace (push off) anyone you create it in the space of.
Create an illusion of a huge creature/wave of fire traveling its way along the wall, making it appear that they either jump or die.

Side note: Grappling does impede attacking, since if they're grappled if you knock them prone they can't get back up, giving them permanent disadvantage.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-11-12, 04:21 AM

none of this things are as good or as flexible as a fighter just running around and shoving, and they all burn resources

like it's a good list but mechanically, in practice, its sub par

Eslin

2014-11-12, 04:30 AM

none of this things are as good or as flexible as a fighter just running around and shoving, and they all burn resources

like it's a good list but mechanically, in practice, its sub par

I like how you don't give any reasons why they aren't. How is having ~10 skeletons run up and push people off less flexible or good than a fighter shoving, and how does it cost resources?

How is creating a wall of force to cover the wall and automatically push everyone off it not straight up better than having the fighter rely on hitting four attacks and beating every check successfully? Pushes more people off and makes it impassible, that's flat out superior.

Fra Antonio

2014-11-12, 05:02 AM

I like how you don't give any reasons why they aren't. How is having ~10 skeletons run up and push people off less flexible or good than a fighter shoving, and how does it cost resources?

How is creating a wall of force to cover the wall and automatically push everyone off it not straight up better than having the fighter rely on hitting four attacks and beating every check successfully? Pushes more people off and makes it impassible, that's flat out superior.
Oh, this casters vs mundane argument just won't stop, will it? You CAN'T give mundanes the same utility as casters without making them not mundane.
5e clearly aims to evoke classical fantasy imagery, where magic is special (Monk is a notable exception).
If you want some more wuxia powers or "mundanes" capable of reliably breaching stone walls, hurling boulders and monsters around and dancing on vertical slopes, you'll have to homebrew or wait for thematic splatbooks - I'm sure they will come.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 05:31 AM

Oh, this casters vs mundane argument just won't stop, will it? You CAN'T give mundanes the same utility as casters without making them not mundane.
5e clearly aims to evoke classical fantasy imagery, where magic is special (Monk is a notable exception).
If you want some more wuxia powers or "mundanes" capable of reliably breaching stone walls, hurling boulders and monsters around and dancing on vertical slopes, you'll have to homebrew or wait for thematic splatbooks - I'm sure they will come.

Magic's not special, 7/12 classes are casters and another 3/12 have caster subclasses, and any class can take magical adept or ritual caster - your average human peasant likely has some spells (those two being by far the best use of a bonus feat for a commoner*). And considering casters and martials have equal combat power (each have strengths, but on the whole everyone is about even in combat at least until foresight and true polymorph happen), casters having greater in combat utility and far greater out of combat utility leaves them flat out a better choice than martials. Nowhere near as bad as 3.5, but in 5e casters are still superior.

*Thinking about it, that's absolutely true. Rituals speak for themselves, but your average peasant might take something like magical training and guidance (bonus on everything in their daily life), mending (repair everything for free) and cure light wounds (daily freedom from injuries!).

Fra Antonio

2014-11-12, 05:57 AM

Magic's not special, 7/12 classes are casters and another 3/12 have caster subclasses, and any class can take magical adept or ritual caster - your average human peasant likely has some spells (those two being by far the best use of a bonus feat for a commoner*).
Player's Handbook describes player options, not world building options. Player characters are exceptional. The number of magic-using player classes is not a representation of general demographics - we have this many classes because you need mechanics to determine what magic can and cannot do in any particular character's hands. To find out what a martial character can do, you just need some basic mechanics, imagination and common sense.
Also, commoners don't get any feats.

All this said, it doesn't mean that a DM can't make a world where commoners study basic magic in public schools. It has nothing to do with PC classes though.

And considering casters and martials have equal combat power (each have strengths, but on the whole everyone is about even in combat at least until foresight and true polymorph happen), casters having greater in combat utility and far greater out of combat utility leaves them flat out a better choice than martials. Nowhere near as bad as 3.5, but in 5e casters are still superior.
It will always be like this in this particular setting type.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 06:03 AM

Player's Handbook describes player options, not world building options. Player characters are exceptional. The number of magic-using player classes is not a representation of general demographics - we have this many classes because you need mechanics to determine what magic can and cannot do in any particular character's hands. To find out what a martial character can do, you just need some basic mechanics, imagination and common sense.
Also, commoners don't get any feats.

All this said, it doesn't mean that a DM can't make a world where commoners study basic magic in public schools. It has nothing to do with PC classes though.

It will always be like this in this particular setting type.

Read my post, pretty clear they get a feat at first level. Technically some humans get +1 to all stats instead, but due to the magic thing the other type would have out-competed them ages ago.

Regarding martial characters, that may be well and good verisimilitude wise, but they still end up less useful than casters.

Fra Antonio

2014-11-12, 06:14 AM

Read my post, pretty clear they get a feat at first level. Technically some humans get +1 to all stats instead, but due to the magic thing the other type would have out-competed them ages ago.
They might get a feat if the DM wishes so:

Racial Traits. You can add racial traits to an NPC.
Again, Player's Handbook is just what it says on the tin, not a DM's world building and NPC creation guide.

Regarding martial characters, that may be well and good verisimilitude wise, but they still end up less useful than casters.
Well, this is true. But it is much easier to offer extraordinary non-magical powers as an optional supplement to this setting than remove superpowers from the core game later.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 06:38 AM

Well, this is true. But it is much easier to offer extraordinary non-magical powers as an optional supplement to this setting than remove superpowers from the core game later.

Which is apparently better than having a core book in which martials keep up with casters at higher levels?

Gurka

2014-11-12, 06:42 AM

Can we please try and get this back onto the topic of grappling? There are other threads for arguing mundane vs magical.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-11-12, 07:37 AM

are you sure? I thought maybe we'd start arguing about simulacrum and wish, instead.

Fra Antonio

2014-11-12, 07:38 AM

Which is apparently better than having a core book in which martials keep up with casters at higher levels?
Yes, because many D&D fans enjoy the setting where mundanes can't do what magic does (this keeps magic magical), and at the same time casters wield some real offensive power.
Losing some class balance to make this kind of setting possible is not a big deal - it's not like we are competing in some MMO's top raiding guild, after all. A fighter can feel relevant because he has a unique backstory, unique connections to PCs and NPCs, unique resources outside of his class powers etc. And he also can still hit things hard in battle or do some other pretty useful stuff. Yes, he is still inferior to casters in general usefulness (casters will likely get their unique stuff too), but if you take all factors into account (not just individual power), the difference is not that big.

Can we please try and get this back onto the topic of grappling? There are other threads for arguing mundane vs magical.
All discussions like this come down to mundanes needing DM's fiat to do something cool (like some improvised grappling tricks), and even then nothing stops casters from doing the same thing on top of their magic powers. Some call it bad design and feel like D&D needs like 50-ish pages of maneuvers and special powers describing in detail as many potential situations as possible. Others think general rules, common sense and some pre-established conventions are more than enough.
I'm with the second group. I see grappling rules as a base line, and a good one. The basic limitations they impose are mild and leave so much room for freeform improvisation, at the same time invoking a new situation in the narrative.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 08:07 AM

Yes, because many D&D fans enjoy the setting where mundanes can't do what magic does (this keeps magic magical), and at the same time casters wield some real offensive power.
Losing some class balance to make this kind of setting possible is not a big deal - it's not like we are competing in some MMO's top raiding guild, after all. A fighter can feel relevant because he has a unique backstory, unique connections to PCs and NPCs, unique resources outside of his class powers etc. And he also can still hit things hard in battle or do some other pretty useful stuff. Yes, he is still inferior to casters in general usefulness (casters will likely get their unique stuff too), but if you take all factors into account (not just individual power), the difference is not that big.

All discussions like this come down to mundanes needing DM's fiat to do something cool (like some improvised grappling tricks), and even then nothing stops casters from doing the same thing on top of their magic powers. Some call it bad design and feel like D&D needs like 50-ish pages of maneuvers and special powers describing in detail as many potential situations as possible. Others think general rules, common sense and some pre-established conventions are more than enough.
I'm with the second group. I see grappling rules as a base line, and a good one. The basic limitations they impose are mild and leave so much room for freeform improvisation, at the same time invoking a new situation in the narrative.

The problem is at high levels, this is starting to become a problem. At lower levels you're more reactive than proactive, martials hit a peak in power (at level 5 with extra attack they feel quite strong) and casters don't have much in the way of amazing tools yet, up until mid levels no-one really had problems with feeling useless. Minor things like kicking dirt into someone's eyes or wrestling them to the ground were still useful, casters were far squishier than martials and so couldn't try as much risky stuff and a caster's out of combat solutions were often not that huge and could be replicated with ingenuity by a martial character.

The problem is as you get into higher levels, it becomes 3.5 again. On the whole, martials don't really get any new tools - they're doing the same thing they were 10 levels ago (mostly saying 'I attack' over and over) and even feel less varied in what they can do, with non attack abilities in general becoming less useful (things are too big to grapple, rarely care about dirt in the eyes). At the same time, casters are getting more and more shiny toys and ways to deal with problems and the party is becoming less reactive to events since spells (especially scrying and teleportation) let them choose what they want to do - and the party is well aware that it is the casters who are carrying the show. Fights are rarer and bigger, and far less dependent on who is doing how much damage someone can do and what minor tactics they use, with many fights being decided by how and where it happens - and again, it's the casters abilities that are deciding such things. Tactically, casters have more and more options and apart from attacking martials feel like their options are getting fewer and fewer, but it's strategically that is really hitting the barbarian's morale - martials get no real way to change the bigger picture than diplomacy and killing things (and the bard's a far better diplomat anyway), while caster strategic options (changing the weather, letting the party fly everywhere) are ever increasing.

It's not that martials ever become useless, unlike the 3.5 days where the fighter literally just carried the wizard's stuff by the end, they're just flat out less useful casters are, and by the higher levels it becomes really really apparent.

Gurka

2014-11-12, 08:20 AM

All discussions like this come down to mundanes needing DM's fiat to do something cool (like some improvised grappling tricks), and even then nothing stops casters from doing the same thing on top of their magic powers. Some call it bad design and feel like D&D needs like 50-ish pages of maneuvers and special powers describing in detail as many potential situations as possible. Others think general rules, common sense and some pre-established conventions are more than enough.
I'm with the second group. I see grappling rules as a base line, and a good one. The basic limitations they impose are mild and leave so much room for freeform improvisation, at the same time invoking a new situation in the narrative.

+1

Very well said. Perhaps WotC just needs to take a page from white wolf in the mid 90's. The combat system was so minimal (and awful, but that's another story) that they published the "Big Book of Beating Ass" completely dedicated to fleshing out combat. It wasn't a splatbook in the D&D sense, exactly, but it did the job pretty well.

I doubt that much of the gamist base, or the heavy crunch fans will be happy with any single appendix that "tactical" combat is likely to get in the DMG. Perhaps an entire book of it's own, breaking combat down to multiple layers and various levels of crunch will do the trick. A whole smorgasbord of holds and techniques for grappling alone, plus called shots, hit locations, secondary crit effects, etc.

I'm firmly in the "less is more" camp myself, and since I'm usually the DM here, I don't have to worry about the dreaded DM fiat. And I'm definitely a fan of the rule of cool. Come up with something clever, stylish, funny, or otherwise awesome, and you will be rewarded. Try the same gag over and over, and you may not be.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 08:31 AM

+1

Very well said. Perhaps WotC just needs to take a page from white wolf in the mid 90's. The combat system was so minimal (and awful, but that's another story) that they published the "Big Book of Beating Ass" completely dedicated to fleshing out combat. It wasn't a splatbook in the D&D sense, exactly, but it did the job pretty well.

I doubt that much of the gamist base, or the heavy crunch fans will be happy with any single appendix that "tactical" combat is likely to get in the DMG. Perhaps an entire book of it's own, breaking combat down to multiple layers and various levels of crunch will do the trick. A whole smorgasbord of holds and techniques for grappling alone, plus called shots, hit locations, secondary crit effects, etc.

I'm firmly in the "less is more" camp myself, and since I'm usually the DM here, I don't have to worry about the dreaded DM fiat. And I'm definitely a fan of the rule of cool. Come up with something clever, stylish, funny, or otherwise awesome, and you will be rewarded. Try the same gag over and over, and you may not be.

The repetition thing doesn't make much sense. If you develop a useful trick, any situation in which it's appropriate should work - if anything, it should only get more effective if you've used it before since now you have practice. Obviously this kind of thing should be appropriate to the situation - the inventive thing you did where you used a chain to tangle the minotaur's horns and smashed its head into the ground won't be of much use against a pixie, but unless they've seen it used before it should be just as if not more effective on the fiftieth minotaur as it was on the first.

Fra Antonio

2014-11-12, 08:55 AM

The problem is as you get into higher levels, it becomes 3.5 again. On the whole, martials don't really get any new tools - they're doing the same thing they were 10 levels ago (mostly saying 'I attack' over and over) and even feel less varied in what they can do, with non attack abilities in general becoming less useful (things are too big to grapple, rarely care about dirt in the eyes). At the same time, casters are getting more and more shiny toys and ways to deal with problems and the party is becoming less reactive to events since spells (especially scrying and teleportation) let them choose what they want to do - and the party is well aware that it is the casters who are carrying the show. Fights are rarer and bigger, and far less dependent on who is doing how much damage someone can do and what minor tactics they use, with many fights being decided by how and where it happens - and again, it's the casters abilities that are deciding such things.
I'd recommend your group to take a break and run an adventure in Dungeon World (WARNING: read the actual rules and example of play, not just numbers), then come back to 5e - you'll probably bring back a lot to your table.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 09:07 AM

I'd recommend your group to take a break and run an adventure in Dungeon World (WARNING: read the actual rules and example of play, not just numbers), then come back to 5e - you'll probably bring back a lot to your table.

Nah, just gonna let them take maneuvers from the tome of battle. Not as many strategic options as a caster would have still, but gaining new tactical options that they can do and casters can't as they level should make them feel less useless. Not a fan of Dungeon World, feels like an oldschool rpg to me, one of those games that doesn't try to have the world make sense.

Fra Antonio

2014-11-12, 09:17 AM

Eslin

2014-11-12, 09:27 AM

Yes, extending crunch can help too, if you prefer this approach.

I do. Roleplaying wise they're all competent, but the martials are having less fun (though they're trying to be graceful and not complain about it, I'm having the casters feed things back to me in private) because they're aware that they are flat out less useful than the casters despite being the same level and putting the same effort in. I'd prefer it if 5e had brought 4e style tactical options with it (didn't like 4e much, but it did martial and leader options much better than any other edition of D&D has), but in the absence of that I can port systems from other editions in.

Z3ro

2014-11-12, 10:06 AM

Nah, just gonna let them take maneuvers from the tome of battle. Not as many strategic options as a caster would have still, but gaining new tactical options that they can do and casters can't as they level should make them feel less useless. Not a fan of Dungeon World, feels like an oldschool rpg to me, one of those games that doesn't try to have the world make sense.

As someone who's group never really cared for ToB and currently loves 5E, what tactical options would maneuvers give that 5E currently lacks? In my group's experience, it was mostly used to provide tactical movement (unnecessary now) enhanced damage (also unnecessary) and a variety of status effects (some potential uses, partially unnecessary). This isn't an attack, I'm genuinely curious as to what your group is finding lacking.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 10:14 AM

As someone who's group never really cared for ToB and currently loves 5E, what tactical options would maneuvers give that 5E currently lacks? In my group's experience, it was mostly used to provide tactical movement (unnecessary now) enhanced damage (also unnecessary) and a variety of status effects (some potential uses, partially unnecessary). This isn't an attack, I'm genuinely curious as to what your group is finding lacking.

As I've mentioned before, pretty much any martial options apart from attack and grapple? Even various ways of doing damage are good, since they spice things up. Mountain hammer to smash their way through castle walls, manticore parry to make things feel like real swordfights, white raven stuff so team tactics actually mean something. There are a bunch of reasons, and just feeling that they're getting new tactical options for levelling up (as opposed to no new options, most of their old options becoming gradually less useful and watching the casters get more and more tricks) should do a lot for morale.

silveralen

2014-11-12, 02:54 PM

As I've mentioned before, pretty much any martial options apart from attack and grapple? Even various ways of doing damage are good, since they spice things up. Mountain hammer to smash their way through castle walls, manticore parry to make things feel like real swordfights, white raven stuff so team tactics actually mean something. There are a bunch of reasons, and just feeling that they're getting new tactical options for levelling up (as opposed to no new options, most of their old options becoming gradually less useful and watching the casters get more and more tricks) should do a lot for morale.

You could just create additional skill contests as the PHB mentions/recommends, and allow players to improvise actions as well.

Our table has ones which rely on insight, sleight of hand, and acrobatics for my swashbuckler fighter/rogue. These represent things like watching the enemy so I can use a parry/ripsote if they attack me or possibly just to find an opening, disarming the enemy, feinting to distract them, or to trip them up (technically the only thing new about this last one was my DM deciding acrobatics could be used instead of athletics).

The one I'm running which has a barbarian is similar. Intimidate to frighten an enemy, str vs con as a follow up to an attack to stun them, plus plain old athletics checks to break many things, though not a castle wall as of yet. As an aside, I love the fact the PHB specifically mentions using skills with a different ability bonus if the situation fits, since it now covers things like using strength to intimidate in the appropriate circumstance.

In both circumstances the characters happen to be exceptional at such things. The barbarian has tons of strength+rage advantage, my swash buckler has expertise and high dex.

Nothing really prevents you from allowing characters to do really any of the things you described except you. If your players need to be handed a list of ideas because they struggle to improvise or prefer hard and fast rules nothing stops you from making a list.

Sorry to harp on it, but it bothers me to see people criticize a system when they aren't making an attempt to fully utilize the options given to them.

Vogonjeltz

2014-11-12, 06:42 PM

none of this things are as good or as flexible as a fighter just running around and shoving, and they all burn resources

like it's a good list but mechanically, in practice, its sub par

Mostly agreed. The scenario I was suggesting is enemies who aren't grouped close together (hence the importance of being able to move and shove repeatedly), and some of the suggestions won't actually work. (Mass Suggestion cancels if the activity is obviously harmful; wall of fire doesn't displace and can't turn corners; Gust of Wind is a line; Conjure Elemental requires concentration so you can't have more than one; No minor elemental is truly suitable for this effort, and the closest options would require an 8th level slot to not quite have enough to do it) or are incapable of doing this all in one round (telekinesis is 1 target per round; Bigby's Hand both requires concentration and is single target only;). The undead option comes close, but Skeletons really aren't suitable for this, nor for that matter are zombies. There's also the problem that the same command is given, so presumably even if you had more than 1 undead minion they couldn't execute a shove against separate targets. Having 10 skeletons under one caster control requires a 6th level spell slot.

Those that do potentially work (Wall of Force; Wall of Ice; Wall of Stone) are all burning high level spell slots.

Regarding martial characters, that may be well and good verisimilitude wise, but they still end up less useful than casters.

This has not been the case in actual gameplay thus far. If you've seen otherwise in actual 5th edition gameplay, I'd be interested in know what the scenarios were.

Can we please try and get this back onto the topic of grappling? There are other threads for arguing mundane vs magical.

I don't see a problem with the grapple check being a skill check. Shove is too. Both seem to be effective strategies.

Eslin

2014-11-12, 09:49 PM

Mostly agreed. The scenario I was suggesting is enemies who aren't grouped close together (hence the importance of being able to move and shove repeatedly), and some of the suggestions won't actually work. (Mass Suggestion cancels if the activity is obviously harmful; wall of fire doesn't displace and can't turn corners; Gust of Wind is a line; Conjure Elemental requires concentration so you can't have more than one; No minor elemental is truly suitable for this effort, and the closest options would require an 8th level slot to not quite have enough to do it) or are incapable of doing this all in one round (telekinesis is 1 target per round; Bigby's Hand both requires concentration and is single target only;). The undead option comes close, but Skeletons really aren't suitable for this, nor for that matter are zombies. There's also the problem that the same command is given, so presumably even if you had more than 1 undead minion they couldn't execute a shove against separate targets. Having 10 skeletons under one caster control requires a 6th level spell slot.

Those that do potentially work (Wall of Force; Wall of Ice; Wall of Stone) are all burning high level spell slots.

This has not been the case in actual gameplay thus far. If you've seen otherwise in actual 5th edition gameplay, I'd be interested in know what the scenarios were.

As a DM, I'd rule mass suggestion would work if the choices were between two harmful choices - if they thought the wizard was telling the truth about them dying if they stayed, I'd certainly have that work. Yes gust of wind is a line, which is why you either have them all off the end or you angle it at say a 20 degree angle so it pushes everyone off. Summoning wise, can't remember what you can actually conjure, but there'll be mephits in this edition that can blind/sleep enemies, just have them do that then push them off. With telekinesis you throw targets at other targets to get people off, and bigby's is a bonus action so you use it to clean up whoever you didn't get. Skeletons or zombies very much are suitable for the job - the numbers mean they're more reliable than a fighter, and a command of 'push all those guards off the wall' works fine. Regarding spell slots, you only want one or two dozen undead under your control for most purposes so it just takes a few of your level 3/4 spell slots and gives you that kind of utility all day, you're not paying spell slots to knock the guards off the wall, you're just using the payment you already made for good purpose.

You could just create additional skill contests as the PHB mentions/recommends, and allow players to improvise actions as well.

Our table has ones which rely on insight, sleight of hand, and acrobatics for my swashbuckler fighter/rogue. These represent things like watching the enemy so I can use a parry/ripsote if they attack me or possibly just to find an opening, disarming the enemy, feinting to distract them, or to trip them up (technically the only thing new about this last one was my DM deciding acrobatics could be used instead of athletics).

The one I'm running which has a barbarian is similar. Intimidate to frighten an enemy, str vs con as a follow up to an attack to stun them, plus plain old athletics checks to break many things, though not a castle wall as of yet. As an aside, I love the fact the PHB specifically mentions using skills with a different ability bonus if the situation fits, since it now covers things like using strength to intimidate in the appropriate circumstance.

In both circumstances the characters happen to be exceptional at such things. The barbarian has tons of strength+rage advantage, my swash buckler has expertise and high dex.

Nothing really prevents you from allowing characters to do really any of the things you described except you. If your players need to be handed a list of ideas because they struggle to improvise or prefer hard and fast rules nothing stops you from making a list.

Sorry to harp on it, but it bothers me to see people criticize a system when they aren't making an attempt to fully utilize the options given to them.

But those aren't options given to us. Sure I can invent stuff like that, but there are no rules for it nor even suggestions for how to make them work. If we're allowing weird skill checks to do things they can't, why can't casters make similar checks for extra effect when they're casting spells?

Once again casters have rules making them good, and you're claiming that your alterations to the game allow them to keep up so it's balanced. That's not how balance works, but it's true that alterations are needed - hence bringing in tome of battle, letting them have rules for what they can do rather than relying on the DM making up ways to keep them relevant on the fly.

silveralen

2014-11-12, 11:10 PM

But those aren't options given to us. Sure I can invent stuff like that, but there are no rules for it nor even suggestions for how to make them work. If we're allowing weird skill checks to do things they can't, why can't casters make similar checks for extra effect when they're casting spells?

Once again casters have rules making them good, and you're claiming that your alterations to the game allow them to keep up so it's balanced. That's not how balance works, but it's true that alterations are needed - hence bringing in tome of battle, letting them have rules for what they can do rather than relying on the DM making up ways to keep them relevant on the fly.

Page 192, improvising actions

Your character can do things not covered in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weakness in magical defenses or calling for parley with a foe. The only limits are your imagination and you character's ability scores [....] when you describe an action not covered by the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make

Skill checks can literally do whatever you want that has a decent chance of success. Breaking through castle walls with a strength check is an example.

Page 193, contests in combat

Battle often involves pitting your prowess against that of your foe. Such a challenge is represented by a contest. This section includes the most common contests that require an action in combat: shoving and grappling a creature. The DM can use these as models for improvising others

As DM, it is literally your job to come up with exactly what I described. Improvising actions are not optional, unless you just say "that's impossible" and shut down all player creativity. In which case, that is your failure as a DM, not a failure of the system. If someone wants to disarm the enemy, it is entirely you job to provide a method of doing so.

As for why casters can't do it as part of a spell... the examples all take an action to do. Though, if a character can make multiple attacks, they can substitute one of those attacks with said action. Those seem like pretty clear guidelines, and really easy. You and your enemy both make an appropriate ability/skill check, if you roll higher x result happens, it uses either your action or one attack from your attack action to do so.

This is such a simple way to handle it that you can make things up on the fly with minimal work.

These are not alterations, these are things that PHB literally tells you it is your job, as DM, to do. I cannot stress that enough.

Eslin

2014-11-13, 12:18 AM

Page 192, improvising actions

Skill checks can literally do whatever you want that has a decent chance of success. Breaking through castle walls with a strength check is an example.

Page 193, contests in combat

As DM, it is literally your job to come up with exactly what I described. Improvising actions are not optional, unless you just say "that's impossible" and shut down all player creativity. In which case, that is your failure as a DM, not a failure of the system. If someone wants to disarm the enemy, it is entirely you job to provide a method of doing so.

As for why casters can't do it as part of a spell... the examples all take an action to do. Though, if a character can make multiple attacks, they can substitute one of those attacks with said action. Those seem like pretty clear guidelines, and really easy. You and your enemy both make an appropriate ability/skill check, if you roll higher x result happens, it uses either your action or one attack from your attack action to do so.

This is such a simple way to handle it that you can make things up on the fly with minimal work.

These are not alterations, these are things that PHB literally tells you it is your job, as DM, to do. I cannot stress that enough.

These are absolutely not my job as DM. My job as DM is to arbitrate how the world works (exceedingly boring, but someone needs to) and to create and run the world the players are playing in (fun). Rules are a framework for what can take place, and I'm not going to tire myself out arbitrarily inventing new bits of it on the fly, that's what I have the PHB for. It is not my job to provide a method of disarming, since balanced and consistent rules can't be created on the fly (which is why we pay money for books that have time and playtesting going for them). I put massive amounts of effort into preparing and running a world that players can interact with and will feel like a living breathing place, I'm not going to do the work the designers should have put in for them. The players have classes, feats and skills which give them a variety of abilities, it's their job to use those tools to achieve their goals not my job to randomly create additional tools during play.

silveralen

2014-11-13, 12:29 AM

These are absolutely not my job as DM. My job as DM is to arbitrate how the world works (exceedingly boring, but someone needs to) and to create and run the world the players are playing in (fun). Rules are a framework for what can take place, and I'm not going to tire myself out arbitrarily inventing new bits of it on the fly, that's what I have the PHB for. It is not my job to provide a method of disarming, since balanced and consistent rules can't be created on the fly (which is why we pay money for books that have time and playtesting going for them). I put massive amounts of effort into preparing and running a world that players can interact with and will feel like a living breathing place, I'm not going to do the work the designers should have put in for them. The players have classes, feats and skills which give them a variety of abilities, it's their job to use those tools to achieve their goals not my job to randomly create additional tools during play.

Rule arbitration is part of the DM's job in 5e. Every single rule is not spelled out. If you can't handle someone asking to disarm an enemy with the guideline "skill/ability check vs skill/ability check for an effect, as an attack/action" this edition isn't for you then. Every usage of a skill is similarly not spelled out, are you really going to disallow any usage outside of what is laid otu word for word in the book?

Personally, I think most people can handle it. Player asks to do something, pick the most relevant skill/ability to role. If it is a contested action, pick for both sides and roll. That's honestly less work than looking up the specific rules for the maneuver.

Giant2005

2014-11-13, 12:30 AM

it's true that alterations are needed

Considering that everyone else seems to be happy and only you and your group are having issues with balance, you probably shouldn't be speaking in absolutes like that. Especially considering that by your own admittance, the Fighters haven't even complained which suggests you might be reading into an issue which they aren't actually experiencing.

Eslin

2014-11-13, 12:51 AM

Considering that everyone else seems to be happy and only you and your group are having issues with balance, you probably shouldn't be speaking in absolutes like that. Especially considering that by your own admittance, the Fighters haven't even complained which suggests you might be reading into an issue which they aren't actually experiencing.

No, they've complained, just not to me. The barbarian told the bard he was feeling useless and asked how the bard managed to always have a solution to everything and the bard passed than on to me. If everyone was happy with this kind of thing nobody would have bought the Tome of Battle at all and everyone would think the battlemaster was sufficient in terms of utility, and neither of those things are true.

Rule arbitration is part of the DM's job in 5e. Every single rule is not spelled out. If you can't handle someone asking to disarm an enemy with the guideline "skill/ability check vs skill/ability check for an effect, as an attack/action" this edition isn't for you then. Every usage of a skill is similarly not spelled out, are you really going to disallow any usage outside of what is laid otu word for word in the book?

Personally, I think most people can handle it. Player asks to do something, pick the most relevant skill/ability to role. If it is a contested action, pick for both sides and roll. That's honestly less work than looking up the specific rules for the maneuver.

The reason I'm always having to DM is I know the rules of anything we play back to front, doesn't take long to pick them up. We have the skill/ability check system because it would be impossible to model everything someone could do with a set of rules and this lets a dm go 'ok, roll this' when a player wants to do something - a great tool, and I'm glad 5e has it. The advantage/disadvantage system's a little clunky and sometimes I have to +/- numbers to accurately represent some things, but on the whole it's a simple, versatile tool which helps immersion immensely, I'm a huge fan.

What I'm not a fan of, however, is pretending it is a substitute for the in and out of combat utility a caster gets, or pretending it's a replacement for the variety of martial abilities that should be in place. Casters get just as many skills as martials do and get spells on top of that, while at high levels only attacking and grappling are any use for most martials in combat and they can do nothing which compares to a caster's utility out of combat.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-11-13, 12:56 AM

Eslin

2014-11-13, 01:14 AM

yeah can't think of any reason a player with 3 attacks would use shoves or contests of any kind

Gets a little difficult, creatures get bigger or otherwise much more difficult to affect at high levels. A dragon reduces a caster's options somewhat, since they were given legendary resistances specifically to reduce caster power, but against a dragon pretty much the only thing a barbarian can do of relevance is attack and attack again.

silveralen

2014-11-13, 01:19 AM

What I'm not a fan of, however, is pretending it is a substitute for the in and out of combat utility a caster gets, or pretending it's a replacement for the variety of martial abilities that should be in place. Casters get just as many skills as martials do and get spells on top of that, while at high levels only attacking and grappling are any use for most martials in combat and they can do nothing which compares to a caster's utility out of combat.

It isn't a substitute, it is a different way of playing. What is stopping you from letting that barbarian smash through a wall for example? As long as you think it is possible, he can do it/roll for it.

Second, one player is literally playing the jack of all trades class who is good with magic and skills and who is basically designed to always have an answer. The barbarian isn't really meant to eb that. Other full casters look at bard with envy this edition as well, he can literally do everything. Expertise to be the best at any skill, jack of all trades to be good at every skill, he can get 2 attacks per round and can cherry pick any spell in the game. This is less a caster thing than a bard thing. Not that ToB did anything to fix this skill checks can't. ToB did almost nothing for opening up out of combat options for martial characters besides giving them more skill points.

No, that is not all they can do. That is all you let them do. Explain to him he can do cool things, he just has to be creative. That's his contribution, thinking of something neat to do. Your half of the job is deciding if/how it can happen. That's the give and take that needs to happen. That's what this edition is trying to teach both of you to do. The rules are so streamlined that it is incredibly easy to do so on the fly.

I'm not saying the balance is perfect, but this isn't a system issue. Your reaction as to "well that's not my job" despite the PHB saying it is your job... kinda shows that you don't want to DM this edition. At least... not as intended. When a player asks to do something, you make it happen. It isn't hard I'm 100% sure you can manage it without slowing the game down, but if you aren't willing to do so you really should try another edition. That sort of attitude isn't going to make for an enjoyable 5e game.

MaxWilson

2014-11-13, 02:06 AM

Gets a little difficult, creatures get bigger or otherwise much more difficult to affect at high levels.

Why? Two mind flayers, a couple of elite Drow soldiers, and half a dozen goblin guards is a CR 20-ish encounter. None of those creatures are particularly big or difficult to shove/grapple/kill. Why would you assume that high-level encounters exclusively involve large creatures?

Eslin

2014-11-13, 02:07 AM

It isn't a substitute, it is a different way of playing. What is stopping you from letting that barbarian smash through a wall for example? As long as you think it is possible, he can do it/roll for it.

Second, one player is literally playing the jack of all trades class who is good with magic and skills and who is basically designed to always have an answer. Not that ToB did anything to fix this skill checks can't. ToB did almost nothing for opening up out of combat options for martial characters besides giving them more skill points.

No, that is not all they can do. That is all you let them do. Explain to him he can do cool things, he just has to be creative. That's his contribution, thinking of something neat to do. Your half of the job is deciding if/how it can happen. That's the give and take that needs to happen. That's what this edition is trying to teach both of you to do. The rules are so streamlined that it is incredibly easy to do so on the fly.

I'm not saying the balance is perfect, but this isn't a system issue. Your reaction as to "well that's not my job" despite the PHB saying it is your job... kinda shows that you don't want to DM this edition. At least... not as intended. When a player asks to do something, you make it happen. It isn't hard I'm 100% sure you can manage it without slowing the game down, but if you aren't willing to do so you really should try another edition. That sort of attitude isn't going to make for an enjoyable 5e game.

Maybe I should state things a different way, I may have misrepresented the situation earlier - obviously, any given action a player can attempt. I hate the phrase 'no you can't do that' more than anything else, and even if what they're trying is wildly impractical I give them the chance to try it. The thing is, without an actual ruleset for useful combat actions, they aren't particularly useful. Mechanical options such as 4e and ToB had gave characters differentiation in what they can do and let characters do more as they levelled up, but importantly it also gave baselines for what effects should do, it gave specific tools that the players could use to their advantage - if they took the pearl of black doubt stance that had an opportunity cost in that they couldn't take other things and it rewarded them for switching into the stance when under attack from multiple foes. When improvising things you can't just say 'hey could it get harder to hit me every time they miss?' when surrounded by goblins, since you're always going to have an infinite number of tools to choose from.

That's kind of the point of abilities - you take abilities, and you are penalised for doing so by the fact that it means you didn't take a different ability. A sorcerer gets metamagic as compensation for the fact that he has less tools to choose from than a wizard. A lot of why the mechanical aspects are fun (as opposed to the fun from roleplaying) is because you are asked to select a limited number of tools, and rewarded for selecting a tool appropriate to the situation or adapting your limited tools to new uses. There is also a direct trade for power, abilities tend to have costs (and some stronger abilities are balanced by having to pay gold, for instance), and in exchange for having to pay that price the abilities can be made stronger.

The ability to roll skill or ability checks is a tool all characters have, and it's a tool that doesn't have those checks and balances and so has to be weaker. The only cost is your action, the time you've spent - it is a nebulous, unrestricted tool with no penalties to it, and so cannot be as powerful as abilities that have direct or choice costs. And, by itself, that's fine. General action is a staple of the roleplaying game genre, and is part of what differentiates it from even the free-est of crpgs like the Elder Scrolls and is available to all characters. But by definition it cannot compete with the power or utility of specific tools with proper costs attached to them, and a character with both the general ability to invent actions and a specific set of costed tools will always be better than one with only the general ability to invent actions.

Side note: please note martial characters do not have a complete lack of costed tools. A monk has a variety of such abilities, and as such has much greater in combat utility than most martials, and even barbarians have their rage and fighters their action surge - but these tend to be limited tools, often restricted to only 'I hit that guy slightly harder'. The closest we come to it is the battlemaster fighter, whose toolkit is a joke compared to that of a caster - he gets a bunch of abilities to choose from and 4 dice at level 3. Over the next 17 levels he gets 2 more dice and chooses from a shrinking list of abilities consisting of the abilities he did not think it worth taking earlier, while a wizard gets more and more spells from a list that constantly expands and grows more powerful.

Why? Two mind flayers, a couple of elite Drow soldiers, and half a dozen goblin guards is a CR 20-ish encounter. None of those creatures are particularly big or difficult to shove/grapple/kill. Why would you assume that high-level encounters exclusively involve large creatures?

They don't, but larger creatures and creatures in other ways difficult to affect with such things become more and more common. More relevant to the situation is who can do what - if the mind flayer stuns someone, who can remove it? A caster. If the mind flayer plane shifts out, who can follow it? A caster. If the mind flayer kills someone, who can bring them back? A caster. Who is capable of finding out the fight was going to happen and changing it to be on their terms? A caster. The list of things a caster can achieve and a martial can't grows and grows while the list of things a martial can achieve and a caster can't shrinks. It's not that martials are useless, it's just that past a certain point people would always be better off if they had another caster instead.

JoeJ

2014-11-13, 04:14 AM

More relevant to the situation is who can do what - if the mind flayer stuns someone, who can remove it?

Pretty much anybody in the party can do that. The stun ends if anything breaks the grapple.

If the mind flayer plane shifts out, who can follow it?

Most likely no one. By the time you figure out what plane it went to, it will be long gone.

If the mind flayer kills someone, who can bring them back?

Raising the dead I'll give you. But that leaves out a lot of casters along with the martials.

Who is capable of finding out the fight was going to happen and changing it to be on their terms?

A rogue, monk, or anybody else with a high dexterity and proficiency in stealth. Casting spells is one way of doing recon; it's not the only way. And only some of the time is it the best way.

The list of things a caster can achieve and a martial can't grows and grows while the list of things a martial can achieve and a caster can't shrinks. It's not that martials are useless, it's just that past a certain point people would always be better off if they had another caster instead.

Then it's a good thing that anybody who wants to can play a caster, isn't it? Every single class has one or more subclasses that can cast spells. Thirty-five of the forty subclasses have at least some explicitly magical abilities. That's on top of racial spellcasting, feats that grant spellcasting, and of course, multiclassed spellcasters.

Do you want to play a sorcerer who also knows how to swing a sword? A character who balances fighting skills and magic? A rogue who has picked up a few spells in their travels? A fighter who still remembers the one cantrip they learned as a child? You can play any of these, and many more besides. If somebody is playing a completely non-magical character in 5e it's because they want to play a completely non-magical character.

I still don't understand what all this has to do with whether or not grappling is broken, though.

Eslin

2014-11-13, 04:31 AM

Pretty much anybody in the party can do that. The stun ends if anything breaks the grapple.

No it doesn't? A mind flayer's stun is an int saving throw in a 60ft cone.

Most likely no one. By the time you figure out what plane it went to, it will be long gone.

There are ways to figure out where it's gone, and it can only plane shift once a day. Only way to catch it is for your casters to figure out where it's gone and plane shift after it

Raising the dead I'll give you. But that leaves out a lot of casters along with the martials.

Different casters have different strengths. That's fine, it's just unfair that in those areas martials have no strengths and no compensation for that.

A rogue, monk, or anybody else with a high dexterity and proficiency in stealth. Casting spells is one way of doing recon; it's not the only way. And only some of the time is it the best way.

Mind flayers have perception +6, if there is such a party then there's a good chance you'll be spotted. Arcane eye, by comparison is invisible, can go through places the rogue can't and importantly doesn't place the user in danger - if the rogue sneaks up and is spotted he's ****ed, the caster can do it without risk.

Then it's a good thing that anybody who wants to can play a caster, isn't it? Every single class has one or more subclasses that can cast spells. Thirty-five of the forty subclasses have at least some explicitly magical abilities. That's on top of racial spellcasting, feats that grant spellcasting, and of course, multiclassed spellcasters.

Do you want to play a sorcerer who also knows how to swing a sword? A character who balances fighting skills and magic? A rogue who has picked up a few spells in their travels? A fighter who still remembers the one cantrip they learned as a child? You can play any of these, and many more besides. If somebody is playing a completely non-magical character in 5e it's because they want to play a completely non-magical character.

I still don't understand what all this has to do with whether or not grappling is broken, though.

It's not about magic by itself. Unless it's important to the character concept, I don't care whether my character's abilities are magical or not. It is about the massive versatility and utility a full caster gets which a martial does not, and the fact that the martial gets no compensation for the lack. Eldritch knight gives some utility, and outclasses the other fighter subclasses by a fair margin, but still can't achieve anywhere near what a wizard can. In and out of combat utility is directly related to how many spells you get, and without any other form of compensation for that lack this is bad writing.

It won't always be problem, a ToB/4e style set of options will logically be coming soon, but until then it's pretty annoying. I figured they'd learned their lesson by now, they know how to build martials with options, I don't understand why they didn't do so for 5e's core.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-11-13, 06:46 AM

The thing is, without an actual ruleset for useful combat actions, they aren't particularly useful.
i find this staggeringly untrue!

ability contests usually have big impacts on whatever is going on. grappling and shoving are the examples defined by WotC, and they are both supremely useful.

there's tons of other conceivable ways to gain advantage or impose disadvantage, limited mainly by player imagination and GM adjudication.

then there's stuff like shoving a bookcase over on someone, severing a bridge, clambering onto a big critter, throwing a goblin into the other goblins, etc.

silveralen

2014-11-13, 07:23 AM

It won't always be problem, a ToB/4e style set of options will logically be coming soon, but until then it's pretty annoying. I figured they'd learned their lesson by now, they know how to build martials with options, I don't understand why they didn't do so for 5e's core.

That's actually pretty simple, 5e moved back to more familiar mechanics because 4e was getting outsold by pathfinder. ToB was a very controversial book that got banned at a lot of tables, which is especially telling when you consider many of the things in that book were still weaker than core, and only served to allow balanced martial characters who actually functioned well within the system. Which actually shows how someone decide that style of powers isn't actually what people want, at least not overall. You see hints of it in places (monk being the most obvious example, paladin and ranger having some of skinned as spellcasting) but it is quite possible they didn't see the desire as being as universal as you do. Which is why such options didn't make it to the PHB, though it is possible it could be in the DM guide (and thus technically core) as options.

For example, I'm not personally desirous of it myself, my favorite martial system until now was 2nd edition which very much leaned on "come up with things to do and your DM figures out how". I've always enjoyed that style, rather than picking powers, and it is why I like martial characters more than magical ones. As always YMMV, last edition was styled more for you this one seems to be more for me.

I'm personally very satisfied with martial characters in combat, and so long as a DM is flexible I think a lot of fun can be had. I certainly think your barbarian will enjoy himself more when you make it clear to him that you will let him do more varied things if he requests them. The thought doesn't occur to everyone especially young players used to hard and fast video game rules, so encourage them.

A lot of the other stuff you talk about will always be a problem. No non magical character has ever resurrected the dead or plane shifted in DnD. I highly doubt that will change. ToB didn't do much about this. 4e did a little, but that was mainly heavily restricting what utility magic could bring to the table and allowing anyone to learn magic rituals, which kinda made "non magical" a little questionable. Some effects simply aren't things you saw martial characters do. I actually think something like scion's epic attribute system might be more to your liking. Whether or not anything like that ever sees official support is questionable, but it might be a good source of homebrew for fixing this aspect, as I really can't recall ToB doing much.

Eslin

2014-11-13, 07:26 AM

i find this staggeringly untrue!

ability contests usually have big impacts on whatever is going on. grappling and shoving are the examples defined by WotC, and they are both supremely useful.

there's tons of other conceivable ways to gain advantage or impose disadvantage, limited mainly by player imagination and GM adjudication.

then there's stuff like shoving a bookcase over on someone, severing a bridge, clambering onto a big critter, throwing a goblin into the other goblins, etc.

Yes, and like I've stated previously, that kind of thing doesn't match a caster's in combat utility, doesn't even come close to their out of combat utility and gets progressively less useful as levels progress, while casting gets progressively more useful.

Throwing a goblin into other goblins or shoving a bookcase over on someone is fun at early levels, but such options become less and less practical against higher level enemies.

Again, it's not that martials have no useful actions, it's just that casters get access to the same skills, anything a martial can can achieve a caster can too and on top of that casters have a vast amount of in and out of combat options that martials have no way of matching.

That's actually pretty simple, 5e moved back to more familiar mechanics because 4e was getting outsold by pathfinder. ToB was a very controversial book that got banned at a lot of tables, which is especially telling when you consider many of the things in that book were still weaker than core, and only served to allow balanced martial characters who actually functioned well within the system. Which actually shows how someone decide that style of powers isn't actually what people want, at least not overall. You see hints of it in places (monk being the most obvious example, paladin and ranger having some of skinned as spellcasting) but it is quite possible they didn't see the desire as being as universal as you do. Which is why such options didn't make it to the PHB, though it is possible it could be in the DM guide (and thus technically core) as options.

For example, I'm not personally desirous of it myself, my favorite martial system until now was 2nd edition which very much leaned on "come up with things to do and your DM figures out how". I've always enjoyed that style, rather than picking powers, and it is why I like martial characters more than magical ones. As always YMMV, last edition was styled more for you this one seems to be more for me.

I'm personally very satisfied with martial characters in combat, and so long as a DM is flexible I think a lot of fun can be had. I certainly think your barbarian will enjoy himself more when you make it clear to him that you will let him do more varied things if he requests them. The thought doesn't occur to everyone especially young players used to hard and fast video game rules, so encourage them.

A lot of the other stuff you talk about will always be a problem. No non magical character has ever resurrected the dead or plane shifted in DnD. I highly doubt that will change. ToB didn't do much about this. 4e did a little, but that was mainly heavily restricting what utility magic could bring to the table and allowing anyone to learn magic rituals, which kinda made "non magical" a little questionable. Some effects simply aren't things you saw martial characters do. I actually think something like scion's epic attribute system might be more to your liking. Whether or not anything like that ever sees official support is questionable, but it might be a good source of homebrew for fixing this aspect, as I really can't recall ToB doing much.

Out of combat wise, martials are never gonna equal what casters can do. That's fine, that's inherent to how casting works - so they should get something else to compensate. Seems pretty reasonable, no idea why they didn't. 4e equalised it by making everyone operate on almost the exact same system, which was a huge flaw and pretty much sunk the edition by itself. I like a lot of what 4e tried to do, but they compensated for 3.5's imbalance by standardising the maths instead of reducing its complexity and making everyone homogenous, a huge mistake - that doesn't mean they had to throw its good ideas out in 5e when they decided to throw out the bad.

Barbarian wise, they're all aware they can try anything, but he's also aware that there's very little he can do in or out of combat besides jumping places and hitting things with an axe that will actually be effective, I think I explained the concept pretty well with the whole costed specific tools vs costless open ended ones thing.

And Tome of Battle wise is one of the few instances when people are usually just flat out wrong to ban something. ToB was significantly weaker than a lot of things in core, you're right, and like psionics (also flat out weaker than core casting) it was often banned because of incorrect perceptions or attitudes. That's not a problem with the product itself, just a problem with the way DMs think.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-11-13, 07:40 AM

es, and like I've stated previously, that kind of thing doesn't match a caster's in combat utility,

...You realize you are posting this in a thread about how grappling is possibly too amazing, right?

edit: I mean, casters vs martials, it's a valid argument. It's just an odd choice for this thread and not much to do with grappling.

There's Bigby's Hand, but it's basically in the dragonboat: good STR, but lacking skill bonuses.

Eslin

2014-11-13, 07:49 AM

...You realize you are posting this in a thread about how grappling is possibly too amazing, right?

edit: I mean, casters vs martials, it's a valid argument. It's just an odd choice for this thread and not much to do with grappling.

There's Bigby's Hand, but it's basically in the dragonboat: good STR, but lacking skill bonuses.

Eh, I like grappling. It being based on athletics makes it one thing martials are just as good at as casters, and martials are better at tripping the creature once its down. I'm not the one who started the discussion on the caster/martial thing, but I'm happy to continue it =P

When martials are given a nice thing the reaction shouldn't be 'is this too good?', it should be 'how do we boost their other options to be on par with this so this isn't always the optimal course of action'

silveralen

2014-11-13, 08:05 AM

Out of combat wise, martials are never gonna equal what casters can do. That's fine, that's inherent to how casting works - so they should get something else to compensate. Seems pretty reasonable, no idea why they didn't.

Barbarian wise, they're all aware they can try anything, but he's also aware that there's very little he can do in or out of combat besides jumping places and hitting things with an axe that will actually be effective, I think I explained the concept pretty well with the whole costed specific tools vs costless open ended ones thing.

I certainly think they tried this edition. Barbarians can fly (sort of) and trip giants, monks can do a vast array of things, and rogues have skills far beyond most classes. That's both within and outside of combat. I think fighter got left behind somewhat though, BM works in an odd manner, champion feels like it needs tweaking in multiple spots and is boring regardless, and eldritch knight isn't built amazingly imo. Still, even fighter has action surge from level two, which is basically a more flexible version of one if the highest level maneuvers in ToB, though not usable as often.

Skill contests do have a "cost" which is basically action economy. You give up a single attack to use one. In this regard, a fighter does well because losing one attack doesn't matter much since he can easily have 3-4 by the mid levels. Other classes with two attacks have to work a bit harder to make them a good usage of time, usually by finding ways to generate attacks. Classes with a single attack can't really rely on them, they don't offer enough.

Eslin

2014-11-13, 08:24 AM

I certainly think they tried this edition. Barbarians can fly (sort of) and trip giants, monks can do a vast array of things, and rogues have skills far beyond most classes. That's both within and outside of combat. I think fighter got left behind somewhat though, BM works in an odd manner, champion feels like it needs tweaking in multiple spots and is boring regardless, and eldritch knight isn't built amazingly imo. Still, even fighter has action surge from level two, which is basically a more flexible version of one if the highest level maneuvers in ToB, though not usable as often.

Skill contests do have a "cost" which is basically action economy. You give up a single attack to use one. In this regard, a fighter does well because losing one attack doesn't matter much since he can easily have 3-4 by the mid levels. Other classes with two attacks have to work a bit harder to make them a good usage of time, usually by finding ways to generate attacks. Classes with a single attack can't really rely on them, they don't offer enough.

Time Stands Still was only added flexibility because there were other, useful options, when all you can do is full attack full attacking twice as much isn't flexibility, it's power. And yes, they tried. They even came close in parts, if the monk had several more abilities per subtype they would have even been useful in ways a caster wasn't, ditto the rogue. I like that they tried, and the fact the edition itself is simple and balanced plus those attempts, even if they were kind of crap, is the reason I bought the PHB and MM.

Something obviously screwed up along the way. Playtest issues with the monk and battlemaster were ignored or made worse, it obviously wasn't proofread very well, martials are a lot closer to the 2e/early 3.x model than the 4e/late 3.x model despite the ease with which they could have included both, a bunch of really stupid problem spells got through (hello simulacrum/contagion/conjure 8 pixies) and the ability increase/save scaling/feat model is a bit clunky. But the thing is, compared to the issues of 3.5 and 4e, that's fine. Every edition starts off clunky, even if to be honest there isn't really a good excuse for this one to have done so, they're trying, they'll refine things, problems will be identified and there will probably very soon be a supplement with the equivalents of the warlord and warblade in them. I mean hopefully binder/master of many forms/chameleon and other such archetypes that would translate well to fifth will happen at some point, but we have other things to fill their gap, while the lack of martial options is hurting.

But still, they're going into this with good faith so I will too. The lack of options annoys the hell out of me right now, but I'm supporting the product and am confident they'll be fixed.

Z3ro

2014-11-13, 08:46 AM

No it doesn't? A mind flayer's stun is an int saving throw in a 60ft cone.

You get a saving throw every round to resist the stun. In addition, both fighters and monks have abilities that let them reroll failed saves.

There are ways to figure out where it's gone, and it can only plane shift once a day. Only way to catch it is for your casters to figure out where it's gone and plane shift after it

This one I think is the most interesting example you could give; a monk is by far the better option to go after a plane-shifted mind flayer. He's got the best chance of killing the mind flayer, and he's got the ability to get back, too. In fact, the monk is the only class in the game capable of casting more than one 9th level spell in a day.

Mind flayers have perception +6, if there is such a party then there's a good chance you'll be spotted. Arcane eye, by comparison is invisible, can go through places the rogue can't and importantly doesn't place the user in danger - if the rogue sneaks up and is spotted he's ****ed, the caster can do it without risk.

Yeah, except that many martials can cast invisibility, and a shadow monk can teleport out if they get spotted.

It's not about magic by itself. Unless it's important to the character concept, I don't care whether my character's abilities are magical or not. It is about the massive versatility and utility a full caster gets which a martial does not, and the fact that the martial gets no compensation for the lack. Eldritch knight gives some utility, and outclasses the other fighter subclasses by a fair margin, but still can't achieve anywhere near what a wizard can. In and out of combat utility is directly related to how many spells you get, and without any other form of compensation for that lack this is bad writing.

It won't always be problem, a ToB/4e style set of options will logically be coming soon, but until then it's pretty annoying. I figured they'd learned their lesson by now, they know how to build martials with options, I don't understand why they didn't do so for 5e's core.

I'm still confused by what out of combat utility ToB granted to non-casters. They got a few combat options, sure, but almost nothing for out of combat. Maybe they could tunnel through walls and get the scent ability, but that was about it.

Eslin

2014-11-13, 09:06 AM

You get a saving throw every round to resist the stun. In addition, both fighters and monks have abilities that let them reroll failed saves.
Evening out with several casters getting proficiency on int saves in the 'not the point' category, was asking who can remove it.

This one I think is the most interesting example you could give; a monk is by far the better option to go after a plane-shifted mind flayer. He's got the best chance of killing the mind flayer, and he's got the ability to get back, too. In fact, the monk is the only class in the game capable of casting more than one 9th level spell in a day.
Not sure why the fact that they can use part of one specific 9th level spell several times a day is relevant to anything - it's the versatility I'm referring to here. And the monk is not the best to go after the flayer, since he can't bring anyone else along so if he loses he's completely boned. The caster, in contrast, can both do it earlier, bring others as well and this is the important part, please note that it's the key difference: if they don't need to swap planes that day can take a different ability instead.

Don't get me wrong, giving martials caster like abilities is a great way to have them catch up, it's why the monk has the best utility of any of the martial classes. The thing is, if you're not giving them the spellcasting system (huge choice in available spells, able to swap them on a daily basis depending on what's useful, able to choose how much of their resources are devoted to a given spell) you need to make up for it by giving them options with the spells casters can't do - the shadow monk at will teleportation's a great example of that, it's an infinite shadow misty step. They just needed to go further with it, they're half way between the 3.5 monk (look I can imitate feather fall and expeditious retreat and dimension door and a bunch of other minor spells all of it poorly or rarely plus without the ability to swap it out, yaaaay wait why is everyone rolling a wizard?) and where they need to be. It's a good attempt though, better than the rest of the martials, give them a few years and I'm sure they'll remember the stuff they've released in the last 8 years.

Yeah, except that many martials can cast invisibility, and a shadow monk can teleport out if they get spotted.

I'm still confused by what out of combat utility ToB granted to non-casters. They got a few combat options, sure, but almost nothing for out of combat. Maybe they could tunnel through walls and get the scent ability, but that was about it.

ToB granted a little, but not a huge amount, especially the extraordinary parts of it. Bringing it in for the in combat utility, not the out of combat utility.

JoeJ

2014-11-13, 11:37 AM

No it doesn't? A mind flayer's stun is an int saving throw in a 60ft cone.

Okay, I was looking at the tentacle attack, which also stuns. I guess all a non-caster can do in that case is end the threat by killing the mind flayer.

Which spell would a caster use to remove stun BTW? I looked up lesser and greater restoration, but neither of those mentions stun in the description. If it's a single target spell, the caster will often be better off using their action to kill the mind flayer, just like the martial character.

There are ways to figure out where it's gone, and it can only plane shift once a day. Only way to catch it is for your casters to figure out where it's gone and plane shift after it

Easier said than done. The best spell I can find to help locate the flayer is divination, so the applicable word is not "caster" but "cleric." However, even if you get the information, plane shift will only let you specify a destination in "general terms." Being able to travel to another plane is pretty cool, but you still have to find the mind flayer and most planes are big.

Mind flayers have perception +6, if there is such a party then there's a good chance you'll be spotted. Arcane eye, by comparison is invisible, can go through places the rogue can't and importantly doesn't place the user in danger - if the rogue sneaks up and is spotted he's ****ed, the caster can do it without risk.

Pffft. My 1st level fighter beats a mind flayer's passive perception on a roll of 9 or better. By 16th level she'll only need a 5. And if she can use the environment to gain advantage she'll have only a 4% chance of being spotted. I'm sure a rogue or monk could do even better.

Arcane Eye does have some advantages, but it can't open doors or kill guards before they can raise an alarm. It also uses up a 4th level spell slot, and the cleric you need for the previously mentioned divination spell can't cast it. In fact, it's only on the wizard's list.

It's not about magic by itself. Unless it's important to the character concept, I don't care whether my character's abilities are magical or not. It is about the massive versatility and utility a full caster gets which a martial does not, and the fact that the martial gets no compensation for the lack. Eldritch knight gives some utility, and outclasses the other fighter subclasses by a fair margin, but still can't achieve anywhere near what a wizard can. In and out of combat utility is directly related to how many spells you get, and without any other form of compensation for that lack this is bad writing.

You're comparing a single martial character to a team of at least two casters who were prescient or lucky enough to have the right spells prepared and who didn't use those slots in a previous encounter. In an actual group of PCs, the characters will almost certainly have focused on developing different abilities so that they can cover more bases, which also helps make sure everybody gets their time in the spotlight.

Something you seem to be overlooking is that utility in 5e is not solely determined by class features. Ability scores, feats (both of which fighters get extra of), proficiencies, and backgrounds give any character a great deal of utility in or out of combat. Also, the game's focus on DM rulings rather than rules enormously increases the opportunities for PCs of any class to contribute. It's not like full casters have $1 million in their bank accounts and martials have $1,000 (that would be 3.PF). It's closer to casters having $100 million and martials having $1 million. There's a difference, certainly, but not a hugely important one in most circumstances.

Gurka

2014-11-13, 12:17 PM

If you want utility in a fight, nobody but a fighter can smack somebody in the face, grab 'em, throw 'em to the ground, clap 'em in irons, and still have another "attack" to either hit 'em again, drag 'em around, or gag 'em.

Yeah, every one of those things requires a roll, but with about as good a chance for success against caster types as you're gonna get. Maybe less effective vs big monsters, but that's when you clamber up on 'em, and poke their eyes out! It doesn't even require much DM judgment... If you succeed your athletics roll to grab on, you make your attacks, and if two of them succeed (or one for each eye the critter has), the enemy gets the blind condition on top of damage taken.

These are just a few examples of things you can do without a whole book of listed options, and IMO they're all as powerful (or more so) than combat spells of even high level.

No, you don't get massive AoE abilities. Mages don't get to do much of anything when they're in an anti-magic field or have another powerful caster countering them. There's no such thing as an anti-muscle zone though (not yet anyway). You can try to dodge, but there's no way to counter-spell getting punched in the face.

No, you don't get to traverse dimensions under your own power. Nobody is perfect.

MaxWilson

2014-11-13, 12:44 PM

No it doesn't? A mind flayer's stun is an int saving throw in a 60ft cone.

It only lasts for a minute, and your buddy re-saves every round anyway. Grapple your stunned buddy and retreat with him--or just kill the Mind Flayer. That is better than blowing a 5th level Greater Restoration spell (which wizards don't even know in the first place) on dispelling an effect that is going to be gone momentarily anyway. Do you cast Dispel Magic on enemy Web spells?

There are ways to figure out where it's gone, and it can only plane shift once a day. Only way to catch it is for your casters to figure out where it's gone and plane shift after it

Except, casters have no way to do this that martials do not. Nobody can follow a plane shift, although if you are currently grappling the mind flayer a DM might rule that you get to go with him when he leaves.

Different casters have different strengths. That's fine, it's just unfair that in those areas martials have no strengths and no compensation for that.

Martials kill things. A wizard gets a teensy little DPR of 4d10 per round. He kills one goblin per round while the fighter is killing three goblins. The wizard relies on the fighter(s) so he can conserve resources. In many cases the wizard is better hanging back while the fighter scouts ahead to kill things, so that the goblins don't focus fire on the wizard's squishy AC.

So, no, that is not a "no compensation." I don't know what the Tome of Battle is, but it sounds like you are hoping for some kind of abilities or options that are granted at chargen time instead of game-time, because you think those abilities are going to be better. If we were using a 2E-style system of called shots (which the DMG may have, judging by that sentence in the PHB) for parries/disarms/trips/etc., that can make fighters very fun and effective--but would you complain because the fighters didn't spend chargen resources on it? Your choice if so. I'd just say, "he chose to be someone with 4 attacks per round. That was the cost he paid, and it was sufficient. I'm not going to say that no one knows how to disarm unless they choose it from a limited list of maneuvers at build time--it's just something you can do with your attack, and fighters have more of them, so they're better at it."

Mind flayers have perception +6, if there is such a party then there's a good chance you'll be spotted. Arcane eye, by comparison is invisible, can go through places the rogue can't and importantly doesn't place the user in danger - if the rogue sneaks up and is spotted he's ****ed, the caster can do it without risk.

Mind Flayers have perception +6, and Shadow Monks have Stealth +20. Bards can go even higher. Perception is not an issue here. (Intellect Devourers, however, are.)

It's not about magic by itself. Unless it's important to the character concept, I don't care whether my character's abilities are magical or not. It is about the massive versatility and utility a full caster gets which a martial does not, and the fact that the martial gets no compensation for the lack. Eldritch knight gives some utility, and outclasses the other fighter subclasses by a fair margin, but still can't achieve anywhere near what a wizard can. In and out of combat utility is directly related to how many spells you get, and without any other form of compensation for that lack this is bad writing.

It won't always be problem, a ToB/4e style set of options will logically be coming soon, but until then it's pretty annoying. I figured they'd learned their lesson by now, they know how to build martials with options, I don't understand why they didn't do so for 5e's core.

Again the fixation on chargen-time options. There's more than none way to skin a cat. In the meantime, take Ritual Caster with one of your fighter bonus feats and enjoy having more out-of-combat versatility than the cleric, the druid, the sorcerer, or the bard. "Here, let me set up a Leomund's Tiny Invulnerable Fortress for us to rest in. Huh? Where'd I learn to do this? Oh, you pick up things here and there. I know a guy." "Here, let me link us all telepathically while the monk goes scouting." "Here, let me set some alarms to tell if anyone is trailing us." "Here, let me enchant you to breath underwater." "Here, give me a minute to learn Slaad and I'll interrogate the prisoner." "Here, let my familiar scout ahead." "Here, let me do the dishes. Oh, I didn't mean personally. Unseen Servant." "Here, let me deliver the message. My Phantom Steed is faster than flying." And you do this without sacrificing any combat power except for a single feat, which you get plenty of because you're a fighter.

No, you don't get massive AoE abilities. Mages don't get to do much of anything when they're in an anti-magic field or have another powerful caster countering them. There's no such thing as an anti-muscle zone though (not yet anyway). You can try to dodge, but there's no way to counter-spell getting punched in the face.

Gurka, technically an Anti-Life Shell is an "anti-muscle zone." Muscles can't enter.

Gurka

2014-11-13, 12:59 PM

Gurka, technically an Anti-Life Shell is an "anti-muscle zone." Muscles can't enter.

Touche. I don't really count it, as it affects every (playable) race equally, regardless of class. You're still technically 100% right though.

Hmmm... Maybe a druid wild shaped into elemental form... Need to check the book, but I'm at work! Curse you, job!

infinitetech

2014-11-13, 02:56 PM

Touche. I don't really count it, as it affects every (playable) race equally, regardless of class. You're still technically 100% right though.

Hmmm... Maybe a druid wild shaped into elemental form... Need to check the book, but I'm at work! Curse you, job!
a grapple master with a mobile anti life shell and an anti magic shield? plus the ability to use high winds to make arrows useless(or monk catch) yikes

Xetheral

2014-11-13, 05:25 PM

And Tome of Battle wise is one of the few instances when people are usually just flat out wrong to ban something. ToB was significantly weaker than a lot of things in core, you're right, and like psionics (also flat out weaker than core casting) it was often banned because of incorrect perceptions or attitudes. That's not a problem with the product itself, just a problem with the way DMs think.

(Emphasis added.) Eslin, I think this right here provides a lot of insight into the root of the disagreement. From your perspective, the decision not to include ToB material represents a fundamental error in judgment leading to an inferior game. From the perspective many of the people who declined to include it, the decision is a choice of style, and style decisions can't be erroneous. You're not going to be able to convince them that they're "flat out wrong" when they disagree that there is anything to be "wrong" about.

Ultimately there is a disconnect. You're trying to optimize the overall level of fun for you and your group, and making style and mechanics choices to maximize that enjoyment. Other people are making style and mechanics choices to fit the type of game they want to play, and then seeking to optimize their level of fun within those parameters. Neither approach is superior to the other, particularly considering the incredible diversity in how people derive enjoyment. (Because of that diversity, even if you approached things the same way, you'd still almost certainly reach different conclusions on what made for a better game.)

For better or worse, in designing the parts of 5e we've seen so far, Wizards opted to cater to the segment of the fanbase you disagree with, making style and mechanics choices that appeal to the sort of people who chose not to include ToB in their games.

Gurka

2014-11-13, 06:04 PM

For better or worse, in designing the parts of 5e we've seen so far, Wizards opted to cater to the segment of the fanbase you disagree with, making style and mechanics choices that appeal to the sort of people who chose not to include ToB in their games.

While I agree with most of what you said, I think it's way too early to make your final assessment there. Not everything can be included in core. It's not very realistic (and unfair) to expect ToB classes to replace the conventional fighter, rogue, paladin, or monk.

We still haven't seen ANY supplements, and their stated plan (if memory serves) is 2 to 3 per year. The most popular mechanical subsystems from previous editions that I can think of are Blade Magic, Psionics, and Pact Magic. Given that blade magic offers a similar play style to 4e martial characters, I don't think it will take very long for a supplement devoted to it. Psionics are likely to roll around pretty quickly too.

I honestly just think it's a matter of time.

Xetheral

2014-11-13, 06:39 PM

While I agree with most of what you said, I think it's way too early to make your final assessment there. Not everything can be included in core. It's not very realistic (and unfair) to expect ToB classes to replace the conventional fighter, rogue, paladin, or monk.

We still haven't seen ANY supplements, and their stated plan (if memory serves) is 2 to 3 per year. The most popular mechanical subsystems from previous editions that I can think of are Blade Magic, Psionics, and Pact Magic. Given that blade magic offers a similar play style to 4e martial characters, I don't think it will take very long for a supplement devoted to it. Psionics are likely to roll around pretty quickly too.

I honestly just think it's a matter of time.

I agree entirely-- I think we're very likely to see additional content to address Eslin's (and others') concerns. I think I should have put more emphasis in my post: "For better or worse, in designing the parts of 5e we've seen so far, Wizards opted to cater...." :smallsmile:

Eslin

2014-11-13, 08:52 PM

(Emphasis added.) Eslin, I think this right here provides a lot of insight into the root of the disagreement. From your perspective, the decision not to include ToB material represents a fundamental error in judgment leading to an inferior game. From the perspective many of the people who declined to include it, the decision is a choice of style, and style decisions can't be erroneous. You're not going to be able to convince them that they're "flat out wrong" when they disagree that there is anything to be "wrong" about.

Ultimately there is a disconnect. You're trying to optimize the overall level of fun for you and your group, and making style and mechanics choices to maximize that enjoyment. Other people are making style and mechanics choices to fit the type of game they want to play, and then seeking to optimize their level of fun within those parameters. Neither approach is superior to the other, particularly considering the incredible diversity in how people derive enjoyment. (Because of that diversity, even if you approached things the same way, you'd still almost certainly reach different conclusions on what made for a better game.)

For better or worse, in designing the parts of 5e we've seen so far, Wizards opted to cater to the segment of the fanbase you disagree with, making style and mechanics choices that appeal to the sort of people who chose not to include ToB in their games.

It's why I said one of the rare cases in which their attitude/perception was flat out wrong, and I stick by that. Style wise, you can decide anything doesn't belong in your game and that's fine, I've built worlds with no divine magic in them despite that being core, though banning ToB based on style seems a little silly considering how easy it is to refluff. What I'm referring to is the fact that I've seen both ToB and psionics regularly banned in games that include core in the name of game balance despite both being objectively weaker options than just rolling a core wizard or druid, a decision stemming from a way of thinking that is flat out wrong. Each has a few overpowered bits, as does anything in 3.5, while core is absolutely full of game breakers that people allow anyway. It's one of the reasons I'm excited about 5e, 5e means nobody ever has a reason to play a core only 3.5 game again considering 5e has everything 3.5 core did but is fun no matter who you pick to play.

silveralen

2014-11-14, 12:08 AM

It's why I said one of the rare cases in which their attitude/perception was flat out wrong, and I stick by that. Style wise, you can decide anything doesn't belong in your game and that's fine, I've built worlds with no divine magic in them despite that being core, though banning ToB based on style seems a little silly considering how easy it is to refluff. What I'm referring to is the fact that I've seen both ToB and psionics regularly banned in games that include core in the name of game balance despite both being objectively weaker options than just rolling a core wizard or druid, a decision stemming from a way of thinking that is flat out wrong. Each has a few overpowered bits, as does anything in 3.5, while core is absolutely full of game breakers that people allow anyway. It's one of the reasons I'm excited about 5e, 5e means nobody ever has a reason to play a core only 3.5 game again considering 5e has everything 3.5 core did but is fun no matter who you pick to play.

I think you misunderstood why it was banned in many places. It had less to do with the power than the style and theme. Some people disliked the mechanics (I slowly grew to hate ToB after palying a warblade for a good part of 3.5), some people disliked the flavor, some disliked both. That's why wotc was reluctant to make it core this time around.

Eslin

2014-11-14, 12:13 AM

I think you misunderstood why it was banned in many places. It had less to do with the power than the style and theme. Some people disliked the mechanics (I slowly grew to hate ToB after palying a warblade for a good part of 3.5), some people disliked the flavor, some disliked both. That's why wotc was reluctant to make it core this time around.

The flavour's mutable (the warblade can be fluffed identically to a fighter) and the only one who needs to enjoy the mechanics is the player, not the DM. Banning a system because you dislike the mechanics is like telling everyone at the dinner table they can't eat carrots because you don't like carrots.

silveralen

2014-11-14, 12:34 AM

The flavour's mutable (the warblade can be fluffed identically to a fighter) and the only one who needs to enjoy the mechanics is the player, not the DM. Banning a system because you dislike the mechanics is like telling everyone at the dinner table they can't eat carrots because you don't like carrots.

The mere fact you said warblade is the same as fighter bothers me greatly. If I had a table that fluffed warblade as fighter I'd walk. It's a deal breaker. I could handle 4e fighter, but warblade? Never. It in no way resembles what a fighter should be to me. Try and imagine a grumpy dwarf warrior watching an elf yell "here is my sparkling strike of perfect shining diamond" while flourishing with his sword.That is about how I feel towards those classes.

It's just... no. I've been playing DnD way to long to ever accept that as core. Having what amounts to an anime character who names their attacks really kills the mood for me and the people I play with. I know some people loved it, and I legitimately hope you get splats like that eventually so you can enjoy, but please do not suggest it is the same as a real fighter.

Knaight

2014-11-14, 12:40 AM

silveralen

2014-11-14, 12:54 AM

There's no reason to think that they are calling out the names of attacks, and european fencing manuals in the middle ages routinely named things. The names were different (though some did get pretty fancy), but they were there. The fighter similarity is very much there in a lot of ways. There are some differences, such as the baseline assumption on fighters being that they can fire a bow half decently, but some renaming and avoiding a handful of maneuvers produces a pretty mundane warblade.

If you are talking about Fechtbücher, that's mostly a result of the direct translations, as what starts as purely descriptive ends up sounding odd and flowery. Some of the better translations preserve the functionality of the orginal language much better, and if you can read German it makes a world of difference.

If you are talking about renaissance fencing, especially late era, then yes the formalized duels, focus on flash over function, and lack of effective combat training go a long way towards drawing an accurate anology.

Vogonjeltz

2014-11-14, 01:19 AM

As a DM, I'd rule mass suggestion would work if the choices were between two harmful choices - if they thought the wizard was telling the truth about them dying if they stayed, I'd certainly have that work. Yes gust of wind is a line, which is why you either have them all off the end or you angle it at say a 20 degree angle so it pushes everyone off. Summoning wise, can't remember what you can actually conjure, but there'll be mephits in this edition that can blind/sleep enemies, just have them do that then push them off. With telekinesis you throw targets at other targets to get people off, and bigby's is a bonus action so you use it to clean up whoever you didn't get. Skeletons or zombies very much are suitable for the job - the numbers mean they're more reliable than a fighter, and a command of 'push all those guards off the wall' works fine. Regarding spell slots, you only want one or two dozen undead under your control for most purposes so it just takes a few of your level 3/4 spell slots and gives you that kind of utility all day, you're not paying spell slots to knock the guards off the wall, you're just using the payment you already made for good purpose.

Although interesting conceptually, that's not what Mass Suggestion does. The caster provides a suggested course of activity. That isn't a choice of options or bluffing them, it's straight up saying: "Hey, I think you should go give all your possessions to the first beggars you meet down that road." While that's certainly a method of getting someone to leave the wall, they aren't going to fling themselves off it.

5th doesn't explicitly use a grid, although they provide variant rules for it and most everything operates in 5ft space increments, so I'm not seeing how any angles are worked here. Still, I'd probably allow it if you could draw it out and have it make rational sense.

Mephits can impose negative conditions, sure, but this doesn't help you get those 4 guys off the wall in 1 round, so it doesn't fulfill the criteria I posed earlier. Same goes for telekinesis, Bigby's and so forth. Even if I were to agree that the skeletons could be given multiple orders to push several different creatures off the wall, it's still a massive resource hog requiring significant prep time investment, and even then it will probably fail to work as the undead lack proficiencies in athletics to either grapple their opponent off the wall or shove them off it.

Gets a little difficult, creatures get bigger or otherwise much more difficult to affect at high levels. A dragon reduces a caster's options somewhat, since they were given legendary resistances specifically to reduce caster power, but against a dragon pretty much the only thing a barbarian can do of relevance is attack and attack again.

The Barbarian could use one of their attack actions for an opposed contest where they climb the dragon or other creature 2+ sizes larger than the character (similar to grapple, but non-restrictive of the Dragon's movement, and because the character is deliberately getting on the opponent's back it gives disadvantage to the opponents attacks.) Every round the opponent can make an opposed check to shake the character loose.

There, using my imagination I made up a check in about 15 seconds that the Barbarian could have used against something that can't be grappled or shoved to make combat more interesting.

There's Bigby's Hand, but it's basically in the dragonboat: good STR, but lacking skill bonuses.

And its bonus is in between the maximum possible from natural strength and natural strength + proficiency. So it's better than like, a wizard, or a commoner, but worse than someone with real physical skills. Also it lacks multiple attacks, so it's stuck in the position of: I can slightly impact an enemy, but it probably will have no effect at all on what they do.

I feel like we've talked out the title of the thread...is there anything more to be said about the grapple mechanics?

Eslin

2014-11-14, 01:21 AM

The mere fact you said warblade is the same as fighter bothers me greatly. If I had a table that fluffed warblade as fighter I'd walk. It's a deal breaker. I could handle 4e fighter, but warblade? Never. It in no way resembles what a fighter should be to me. Try and imagine a grumpy dwarf warrior watching an elf yell "here is my sparkling strike of perfect shining diamond" while flourishing with his sword.That is about how I feel towards those classes.

It's just... no. I've been playing DnD way to long to ever accept that as core. Having what amounts to an anime character who names their attacks really kills the mood for me and the people I play with. I know some people loved it, and I legitimately hope you get splats like that eventually so you can enjoy, but please do not suggest it is the same as a real fighter.

Since when are you supposed to yell out the name of your maneuvers? I'm skipping the elf part, now observe your dwarf warblade.

Orik Marlandson is 163 years old and has lived a life of duty, spending a long time as a sentinel before winning great acclaim in the Bloodspitter goblin raids that accompanied the great upland conflict of the turn of the century and being selected as part of the Royal Guard. He has spent the last 20 years dutifully guarding his charge, but this was eventually marred by great failure - while inspecting the Eastern Watch they were ambushed by Driders and he let one through, who would have slaughtered the man he swore to protect had an adventuring party seeking aid on their quest to obtain the Scrolls of Knowing not intervened and saved his liege. In payment of the debt owed, he has been ordered to accompany them and aid them in achieving their goals in order to redeem himself. He has been travelling with them for several years now and misses his home and is not very friendly, though he accepts his exile as its own fault and acknowledges that his party deserves respect and courtesy even if he finds some of their behaviours distasteful. In combat he is tough and efficient, wielding a heavy shield and dwarven waraxe with the benefit of many years of training and many more of experience, typically placing himself between the rest of the party and the greatest danger and sometimes barking orders to others, lamenting the lack of dwarven solidarity which means he cannot expect them to do what is most efficient without having told them first. Initially this was met with resentment, but by now it has been realised by everyone that he is not trying to place himself in charge, merely using his experience and tactical acumen to best effect.

It is actually in combat that everyone likes him most - the stalwart, brave man who deals with failures not with harsh words but by immediately changing plan to compensate for them, the man who fought a grey render to a standstill while standing over a fallen comrade. When the fight is over he retreats into his shell, becoming gruff and taciturn and only joining in conversations when they involve planning or are of some other importance, a trait his comrades are, perhaps in vain, hoping to break him of.

Now, please give me a good reason the dwarf I invented couldn't describe a warblade just as easily as a fighter.

Knaight

2014-11-14, 01:26 AM

If you are talking about Fechtbücher, that's mostly a result of the direct translations, as what starts as purely descriptive ends up sounding odd and flowery. Some of the better translations preserve the functionality of the orginal language much better, and if you can read German it makes a world of difference.

If you are talking about renaissance fencing, especially late era, then yes the formalized duels, focus on flash over function, and lack of effective combat training go a long way towards drawing an accurate anology.

Fechtbücher is part of it, but Germany* was hardly the only source of manuals. Italy had a fair few, England had some, there's a few Spanish ones I've seen, etc. As for time periods, I'm referring more to the 1200's-1400's than renaissance fencing. Manuals made for people likely to be fighting on an actual battlefield, or at least who might end up fighting people who do so.

*Not in the sense of the modern nation state.

Vogonjeltz

2014-11-14, 01:26 AM

Since when are you supposed to yell out the name of your maneuvers? I'm skipping the elf part, now observe your dwarf warblade.

Orik Marlandson is 163 years old and has lived a life of duty, spending a long time as a sentinel before winning great acclaim in the Bloodspitter goblin raids that accompanied the great upland conflict of the turn of the century and being selected as part of the Royal Guard. He has spent the last 20 years dutifully guarding his charge, but this was eventually marred by great failure - while inspecting the Eastern Watch they were ambushed by Driders and he let one through, who would have slaughtered the man he swore to protect had an adventuring party seeking aid on their quest to obtain the Scrolls of Knowing not intervened and saved his liege. In payment of the debt owed, he has been ordered to accompany them and aid them in achieving their goals in order to redeem himself. He has been travelling with them for several years now and misses his home and is not very friendly, though he accepts his exile as its own fault and acknowledges that his party deserves respect and courtesy even if he finds some of their behaviours distasteful. In combat he is tough and efficient, wielding a heavy shield and dwarven waraxe with the benefit of many years of training and many more of experience, typically placing himself between the rest of the party and the greatest danger and sometimes barking orders to others, lamenting the lack of dwarven solidarity which means he cannot expect them to do what is most efficient without having told them first. Initially this was met with resentment, but by now it has been realised by everyone that he is not trying to place himself in charge, merely using his experience and tactical acumen to best effect.

It is actually in combat that everyone likes him most - the stalwart, brave man who deals with failures not with harsh words but by immediately changing plan to compensate for them, the man who fought a grey render to a standstill while standing over a fallen comrade. When the fight is over he retreats into his shell, becoming gruff and taciturn and only joining in conversations when they involve planning or are of some other importance, a trait his comrades are, perhaps in vain, hoping to break him of.

Now, please give me a good reason the dwarf I invented couldn't describe a warblade just as easily as a fighter.

Warblades are described as showboating self centered jerks who are really only in it for the glory, for one thing. Nothing you wrote described that.

Knaight

2014-11-14, 01:34 AM

Warblades are described as showboating self centered jerks who are really only in it for the glory, for one thing. Nothing you wrote described that.

The actual mechanics have approximately nothing that supports that though, and a lot more that supports a stoic, front line fighter.

Eslin

2014-11-14, 01:36 AM

Warblades are described as showboating self centered jerks who are really only in it for the glory, for one thing. Nothing you wrote described that.

Yes, and monks are described as ascetics who practise self control and live a simple communal lifestyle. That doesn't mean I can't make a monk who enjoys feasting and drinking, finds he likes the comfort wealth provides quite a lot and very much appreciates the way his training and exercise makes his body look and uses all that disease immunity and body control etc to have lots of sex. He initially felt guilty about this conflicting with his training, but realised none of it was harming anyone and it was helping relieve pressure from the perilous adventures he regularly undertook for the good of the people, and has resolved that when he begins training others one of the first lessons will be to enjoy themselves.

Remember when I talked about refluffing? In some classes, like paladins and druids, the fluff is inherent to the class. In other cases, like warblades and sorcerers, you can give your character whatever personality you want. Fluff descriptions are just suggestions, if they suggest something you'd rather not do you can just choose to do something else.

The actual mechanics have approximately nothing that supports that though, and a lot more that supports a stoic, front line fighter.

Yes, yes they do. Mechanically I'd take a lot of stone dragon and white raven (lots of standing and fighting and positioning with allies respectively), with a fair chunk of iron heart and diamond mind for defensive purposes. Lots of constitution and strength, a decent amount of intelligence and wisdom. Bam, concept done perfectly well with a warblade and it has the added benefit of actually being able to protect his allies unlike a fighter.

silveralen

2014-11-14, 02:31 AM

The actual mechanics have approximately nothing that supports that though, and a lot more that supports a stoic, front line fighter.

Sure they do. They rely on flashy over complicated tricks, rather than good old fashion tried and true muscle.

Yes, yes they do. Mechanically I'd take a lot of stone dragon and white raven (lots of standing and fighting and positioning with allies respectively), with a fair chunk of iron heart and diamond mind for defensive purposes. Lots of constitution and strength, a decent amount of intelligence and wisdom. Bam, concept done perfectly well with a warblade and it has the added benefit of actually being able to protect his allies unlike a fighter.

What you described is not what I see when I look at the warblade, not in the fluff certainly.

What you suggested is roughly the same as me telling you a white raven themed warblade can be a paladin, except he doesn't actually cast he uses special strikes, his healing isn't magical but battle field triage, and his party buffing abilities come form martial focus.

You are describing a fighter but trying to use warblad erules. I can describe a warblade but use paladin rules. They still aren't the same thing. The moment you strip off the annoying, over the top flash you aren't describing a warblade from ToB anymore, since that was the entire flavor of the class.

Though you picked the two least detestable discplines from ToB, I'll give you that. White raven is legitimately interesting a brought about the warlord class in 4e, and stone dragon actually augmented normal maneuvers (I seem to recall at least one chain dedicate to bullrushing). But it's still a kluge to try and accurately represent the majesty of a normal flexible fighter, trained in real combat not to prance around using a handful of inflexible predetermined maneuvers.

Eslin

2014-11-14, 03:28 AM

Sure they do. They rely on flashy over complicated tricks, rather than good old fashion tried and true muscle.

Not sure about good old fashioned, though I suppose in the case of a dwarf you'd probably want things backed by history. Pretty sure everyone else would just make a beeline for what works, efficiency>tradition. And how are they flashy and overcomplicated? The character I described has a repertoire consisting of tactical leadership, the ability to take and repel blows and strikes meant for taking down foes in close combat.

What you described is not what I see when I look at the warblade, not in the fluff certainly.

What you suggested is roughly the same as me telling you a white raven themed warblade can be a paladin, except he doesn't actually cast he uses special strikes, his healing isn't magical but battle field triage, and his party buffing abilities come form martial focus.

You are describing a fighter but trying to use warblad erules. I can describe a warblade but use paladin rules. They still aren't the same thing. The moment you strip off the annoying, over the top flash you aren't describing a warblade from ToB anymore, since that was the entire flavor of the class.

Though you picked the two least detestable discplines from ToB, I'll give you that. White raven is legitimately interesting a brought about the warlord class in 4e, and stone dragon actually augmented normal maneuvers (I seem to recall at least one chain dedicate to bullrushing). But it's still a kluge to try and accurately represent the majesty of a normal flexible fighter, trained in real combat not to prance around using a handful of inflexible predetermined maneuvers.

No, I'm not describing a fighter. A fighter is a generic class encompassing martial skill, their bonus feats means a fighter can be a half-orc with a longbow, a lightly armoured elf who uses spears in range and a mounted human that fights with sword and lance. I'm describing a character, who can be given any class that has mechanics that tie in with what I just described - and in this case, I picked warblade as it was the best fit.

I described a character and used warblade to make it work mechanically. Barring classes with fluff married to crunch like the paladin, it's impossible to 'describe a class' with a character concept. And I didn't pick the two least detestable disciplines, I picked the disciplines that fit the character concept. If I want to make a feral character that fights with hands, teeth and daggers I'll pick tiger claw and setting sun, if I want to make an Avatar style bending master I'll take desert wind and probably throw in shadow hand to complete the supernatural theme.

The maneuvers are not inflexible - the rest of the game is built around giving characters a set of tools of varying rigidity and letting them use them as appropriate to their environment, giving melee a set of tools of their own was a fantastic idea. I built your fighter, gave him a reasonable backstory and made a warblade that represented what he could do perfectly, much better than a fighter could have - from the bigger gruff dwarven melee bruiser concept to small details like his intelligence and training benefiting aspects of his combat ability. You can describe the warblade as fancy, inflexible, prancing, annoying, over the top and flashy all you want and you can keep using words like majestic, good old fashioned(why is old fashioned good?), tried and true to describe the fighter, but in the end you can't really get away from the fact that their fluff and crunch have nothing to do with each other, and mechanically the 3.5 warblade achieved what the 3.5 fighter was try to do far better than the fighter ever did.

Every class needs a fluff description - some, like the knight and warlock need that fluff description to tie into the crunch and others like the warblade and fighter have seperate crunch and only need a fluff description to give ideas for how someone might play one. They needed to differentiate the warblade from a fighter in that respect, so they picked martial perfectionist out for glory. Not what I would have done (I would have described them as a fighter, but smarter, since that's what they are), but it's serviceable enough as an idea and there is no reason you have to stick to it if it doesn't take your fancy.

Fra Antonio

2014-11-14, 04:18 AM

Remember when I talked about refluffing? In some classes, like paladins and druids, the fluff is inherent to the class. In other cases, like warblades and sorcerers, you can give your character whatever personality you want. Fluff descriptions are just suggestions, if they suggest something you'd rather not do you can just choose to do something else.
Eslin, while I personally agree with you in that one could build Orik as a warblade, I think silveralen's problem with it is warblade mechanics either restricting his options or bringing in alien fluff.

Let's say there is a system where all you can do in combat is roll attack and damage dice. Yes, that is an incredibly boring mechanics, but it is obvious that those dice rolls don't represent just two characters standing still in front of each other swinging their weapons, because fights don't work like this. Obviously, characters are assumed to be using stances (assuming characters know them), different attacks and footwork - all this is just abstracted away, and you can interpret the result of each roll in any way you like.

For many people, martial combat in D&D is like this - when you "standard attack", your character is actually doing something much more complicated than swing your sword randomly. And if you narrate a clever maneuver or use of environment, the DM will probably give you a good benefit, provided your character succeeds.

Now, if you add dozens of (not-so-)different attacks like in ToB, this logically implies one of two things (how I see it):
a) Eslin-style. When non-ToB martial classes attack an enemy, they actually don't use stances, decoys etc. - they just swing their swords. Because ToB guys get the clever tricks. Standard attack is no longer an abstract representation of fighter's skill - it's another attack, but with no additional effects, just a plain and boring one, and can't let you do anything actually useful most of the time.
OR
b) Silveralen-style. Standard attacks stay what they were before, and ToB maneuvers are just something more flashy, extraordinary and unlike any stance or maneuver a normal fighter uses. And when you use a maneuver, it probably looks just like when you used it last time. Why? Because it's blade magic, not something freeform. If it was just a really hard or clever maneuver, any fighter could do it.

Eslin

2014-11-14, 05:12 AM

Eslin, while I personally agree with you in that one could build Orik as a warblade, I think silveralen's problem with it is warblade mechanics either restricting his options or bringing in alien fluff.

Let's say there is a system where all you can do in combat is roll attack and damage dice. Yes, that is an incredibly boring mechanics, but it is obvious that those dice rolls don't represent just two characters standing still in front of each other swinging their weapons, because fights don't work like this. Obviously, characters are assumed to be using stances (assuming characters know them), different attacks and footwork - all this is just abstracted away, and you can interpret the result of each roll in any way you like.

For many people, martial combat in D&D is like this - when you "standard attack", your character is actually doing something much more complicated than swing your sword randomly. And if you narrate a clever maneuver or use of environment, the DM will probably give you a good benefit, provided your character succeeds.

Now, if you add dozens of (not-so-)different attacks like in ToB, this logically implies one of two things (how I see it):
a) Eslin-style. When non-ToB martial classes attack an enemy, they actually don't use stances, decoys etc. - they just swing their swords. Because ToB guys get the clever tricks. Standard attack is no longer an abstract representation of fighter's skill - it's another attack, but with no additional effects, just a plain and boring one, and can't let you do anything actually useful most of the time.
OR
b) Silveralen-style. Standard attacks stay what they were before, and ToB maneuvers are just something more flashy, extraordinary and unlike any stance or maneuver a normal fighter uses. And when you use a maneuver, it probably looks just like when you used it last time. Why? Because it's blade magic, not something freeform. If it was just a really hard or clever maneuver, any fighter could do it.

Yes, clearly everything is an abstraction. Everyone taking up a five foot square means their movement translates to that area, not that everyone is 5 feet wide and long. We're not modelling a turn based rpg where everyone sits there and waits for the other person to swing, I don't think anyone thinks we are. Standard attacks aren't boring narratively, you'll observe that's what Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli spend most of the movies doing but nobody thinks it is boring to watch, in D&D we are aware standard attacks are modelling that. A natural 20 isn't just a particularly good strike, it can also be you knocking your opponent off balance with your shoulder, flawlessly transitioning to a stance suited to thrusting and following up by impaling your enemy, and it's the reason the limited number of attacks make sense - a level 20 paladin can swing his sword more than twice in six seconds, obviously, but his two attacks represent his ability to find two opportunities in that time. I'm not sure where you got the idea that that wasn't the case in my games and pretty much everyone else's.

The initiator system does not mean that a maneuver is the only way someone can ever do anything except stand there and make a simple swing of the sword, maneuvers and stances are just specific things that particular character excels at or has been trained in, much as a monk's flurry of blows is. Just because a monk has flurry of blows does not mean, as Silveralen says, that they have to yell out 'flurry of blows' while punching someone and it doesn't mean everyone except the monk does nothing except stand like a pole and punch straight ahead when fighting unarmed. The chief advantage of the initiator system is it allows for a discrete, costed toolkit for martial abilities, allowing them greater power and utility than the open ended toolkit that the open ended ability to act all characters possess allows.

Fra Antonio

2014-11-14, 05:37 AM

Yes, clearly everything is an abstraction...
...I'm not sure where you got the idea that that wasn't the case in my games and pretty much everyone else's.
Sorry, it seems I misinterpreted you and mixed your opinion with one of a player I know (they are somewhat similar, but not in this particular case). I really shouldn't have attributed this interpretation to your name.

I see your point, but still, many players I know feel constrained by the initiator system (it basically tells what they can do, so some feel like they can't do anything else), and for many others it just doesn't fit the setting, so you can't say it was flat out wrong not to include it in the core rules.
Though I think everyone here agrees that we need more White Raven stuff. It's probably coming with some Warlord class though.

Eslin

2014-11-14, 06:08 AM

Sorry, it seems I misinterpreted you and mixed your opinion with one of a player I know (they are somewhat similar, but not in this particular case). I really shouldn't have attributed this interpretation to your name.

I see your point, but still, many players I know feel constrained by the initiator system (it basically tells what they can do, so some feel like they can't do anything else), and for many others it just doesn't fit the setting, so you can't say it was flat out wrong not to include it in the core rules.
Though I think everyone here agrees that we need more White Raven stuff. It's probably coming with some Warlord class though.

Setting wise, I'm not sure what you mean - the fluff off the ToB was only introduced to differentiate them from the poorly thought out classes they replacing, I don't think anyone's particularly attached to it. It's the system of giving martials more and more varied tools as they levelled that ToB introduced that I'm after, not the fairly generic vaguely asian feeling fluff. I can flat out say it was wrong not to include it in the core rules, however - they did so with 4e and it worked fine, regardless of the edition's other flaws. Considering they knew what was missing, pretending to fill the niche with the battlemaster fighter was a... very strange design decision.

White raven wise, yup. Call it the martial, call it the warlord, call it whatever you feel like, just bring back the martial leader.

Xetheral

2014-11-14, 09:55 AM

It's why I said one of the rare cases in which their attitude/perception was flat out wrong, and I stick by that. Style wise, you can decide anything doesn't belong in your game and that's fine, I've built worlds with no divine magic in them despite that being core, though banning ToB based on style seems a little silly considering how easy it is to refluff. What I'm referring to is the fact that I've seen both ToB and psionics regularly banned in games that include core in the name of game balance despite both being objectively weaker options than just rolling a core wizard or druid, a decision stemming from a way of thinking that is flat out wrong. Each has a few overpowered bits, as does anything in 3.5, while core is absolutely full of game breakers that people allow anyway. It's one of the reasons I'm excited about 5e, 5e means nobody ever has a reason to play a core only 3.5 game again considering 5e has everything 3.5 core did but is fun no matter who you pick to play.

I'm missing something. If you're ok conceptually with banning ToB (or anything else) based on style, then why are people who do so flat out wrong? Are you saying that only people who ban it thinking it's overpowered are "flat-out wrong" to do so? If so, that specificity was lost somewhere in what appeared to be a sweeping denouncement.

Eslin

2014-11-14, 10:14 AM

I'm missing something. If you're ok conceptually with banning ToB (or anything else) based on style, then why are people who do so flat out wrong? Are you saying that only people who ban it thinking it's overpowered are "flat-out wrong" to do so? If so, that specificity was lost somewhere in what appeared to be a sweeping denouncement.

I'm ok with banning anything based on fluff as long as that fluff is inseparable from the gameplay. If the fluff and gameplay aren't directly related, then there's little reason to ban it based on its style since you can just refluff it. But yes, for the most part people banning it thinking it is overpowered are the ones flat out wrong - even if they're not great ones, there are possible reasons to ban even relatively fluff divorced books like the Tome of Battle if their style doesn't suit, since it is possible the DM would have to be doing the refluffing or would have to go over the book and decide what is inconsistent with their setting, and asking the DM (who is putting in by far the most work already) to do even more is unfair. For the most part as long as you drop the vaguely wuxia nine swords details the book will fit anywhere, but I am not going to make the claim that there are no reasons, even if I think there's a good chance they'll be poor ones.

The only reason I can say is always stupid is banning it on mechanical grounds in any game that tier 1-2 classes will appear, something I have unfortunately seen far too much of along with banning psionics for being overpowered.

Xetheral

2014-11-14, 10:30 AM

I'm ok with banning anything based on fluff as long as that fluff is inseparable from the gameplay. If the fluff and gameplay aren't directly related, then there's little reason to ban it based on its style since you can just refluff it. But yes, for the most part people banning it thinking it is overpowered are the ones flat out wrong - even if they're not great ones, there are possible reasons to ban even relatively fluff divorced books like the Tome of Battle if their style doesn't suit, since it is possible the DM would have to be doing the refluffing or would have to go over the book and decide what is inconsistent with their setting, and asking the DM (who is putting in by far the most work already) to do even more is unfair. For the most part as long as you drop the vaguely wuxia nine swords details the book will fit anywhere, but I am not going to make the claim that there are no reasons, even if I think there's a good chance they'll be poor ones.

The only reason I can say is always stupid is banning it on mechanical grounds in any game that tier 1-2 classes will appear, something I have unfortunately seen far too much of along with banning psionics for being overpowered.

Thanks for clarifying!

silveralen

2014-11-14, 11:57 AM

Yes, clearly everything is an abstraction. Everyone taking up a five foot square means their movement translates to that area, not that everyone is 5 feet wide and long. We're not modelling a turn based rpg where everyone sits there and waits for the other person to swing, I don't think anyone thinks we are. Standard attacks aren't boring narratively, you'll observe that's what Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli spend most of the movies doing but nobody thinks it is boring to watch, in D&D we are aware standard attacks are modelling that. A natural 20 isn't just a particularly good strike, it can also be you knocking your opponent off balance with your shoulder, flawlessly transitioning to a stance suited to thrusting and following up by impaling your enemy, and it's the reason the limited number of attacks make sense - a level 20 paladin can swing his sword more than twice in six seconds, obviously, but his two attacks represent his ability to find two opportunities in that time. I'm not sure where you got the idea that that wasn't the case in my games and pretty much everyone else's.

Yeah I just can't reconcile the two. If most of what those characters do are standard attacks, how does a system which discourages standard attacks accurately model those characters? Because that's exactly what ToB did in my eyes, and what I feel a warblade is meant to do. Removing normal attacks for the equation, invalidate normal maneuvers as options by being too weak, and rob such characters of their flexibility.

I can flat out say it was wrong not to include it in the core rules, however - they did so with 4e and it worked fine, regardless of the edition's other flaws.

That's an option. I like BM fighter because it shows fighter being better at doing normal things (by doing them as part of an attack, not replacing one) and because it allows for more hard wired abilities not subject to DM fiat (which is always good to a degree). It also doesn't invalidate standard attacks, because such abilities never become the majority of what you do.

Knaight

2014-11-14, 05:51 PM

Sure they do. They rely on flashy over complicated tricks, rather than good old fashion tried and true muscle.

They have access to Diamond Mind, White Raven, Iron Heart, Tiger Claw, and Stone Dragon. Which pretty much translates to "Being fast and precise", "Working in concert with other warriors", "Being particularly tough", "Being particularly ferocious and reckless" and "Striking particularly hard". The Warblade doesn't get the flashy schools - no Setting Sun, none of the magical schools.

Sure, it's technique more than tried and true muscle, but technique is also why Fighters get a bonus to attack beyond just strength. Technique is also hardly some bizarre import from fighting anime, seeing as it is pretty intrinsic to any tool use.

silveralen

2014-11-14, 06:34 PM

They have access to Diamond Mind, White Raven, Iron Heart, Tiger Claw, and Stone Dragon. Which pretty much translates to "Being fast and precise", "Working in concert with other warriors", "Being particularly tough", "Being particularly ferocious and reckless" and "Striking particularly hard". The Warblade doesn't get the flashy schools - no Setting Sun, none of the magical schools.

Sure, it's technique more than tried and true muscle, but technique is also why Fighters get a bonus to attack beyond just strength. Technique is also hardly some bizarre import from fighting anime, seeing as it is pretty intrinsic to any tool use.

Personal opinions, but i think a lot of what warblade has is unsuited for a typical fantasy fighter, not in the least because he was discouraged from every not using a fancy trick until he ran out, which meant a single attack to recharge. It's technique to the point where it invalidates the simple options, which is not how fighter should work ever imo. I'm glad it isn't present, I'm glad it isn't core, people who want that for whatever reason will likely get supplements at some point. But it isn't how I want my fighters to look, and thankfully they don't.

Speaker

2014-11-14, 09:57 PM

Eslin

2014-11-14, 11:11 PM

Personal opinions, but i think a lot of what warblade has is unsuited for a typical fantasy fighter, not in the least because he was discouraged from every not using a fancy trick until he ran out, which meant a single attack to recharge. It's technique to the point where it invalidates the simple options, which is not how fighter should work ever imo. I'm glad it isn't present, I'm glad it isn't core, people who want that for whatever reason will likely get supplements at some point. But it isn't how I want my fighters to look, and thankfully they don't.

There is no typical fantasy fighter. There was in fourth edition, when the fighter was a melee strength based defender, but in 5e a fighter can be lightly armoured, heavily armoured, ranged, melee, a wielder of spells, a paragon of brute force, a student of lore and art. Just like in 3.5 the fighter is supposed to be a catchall for many different types of warriors, from duelist to gladiator to soldier to bodyguard to town watchman.

Now, having said that, if your attitude represents a reasonable subsection of the player base then I'm glad they didn't include those kind of options for the fighter, since while the fighter is a convenient place to put them there is no overwhelming reason to do so. I'd have liked a 13th age style 'everyone gets maneuvers' system, but barring that I'd have preferred they make a separate class or classes, since it just being a fighter subclass would have sharply reduced the amount of options available. What I am chiefly annoyed about is that they didn't include those kind of options at all - when a player likes playing a martial character but notices that spellcasters get more and more options as they level while his choices stay static or are reduced, what am I supposed to tell them? Sorry, from ToB and last edition's martials they knew people wanted those kinds of options and they knew how to do so, but they decided not to for no good reason?

silveralen

2014-11-15, 12:17 AM

But the simple option sucks so you're saying you want the fighter to suck? So the fantasy fighter is supposed to be extremely limited to the point we're he could only parry 6 times before he has to take a nap? Or can only direct his squad of warriors a couple of times before they're forced to break out in a disorganized melee because he inexplicably lost his ability to lead? Or is the fantasy warrior so dull he can only stab at someone in fancy ways?

Go back to read my earlier post about skill contests. Simple fighters only suck if you lack imagination or have a truly lazy/unpleasant DM.

Oh and there is a feat to parry all day as well. So that's a kind of cruddy example. Actually, I guess the AC bonus from dual wielder also represents parrying (because its again an assumed part of normal combat), so that's two explicit parry type things from feats.

when a player likes playing a martial character but notices that spellcasters get more and more options as they level while his choices stay static or are reduced, what am I supposed to tell them? Sorry, from ToB and last edition's martials they knew people wanted those kinds of options and they knew how to do so, but they decided not to for no good reason?

You point him towards the half casters as a possible solution or help him expand his options within the standard system (again skill contests etc)

I think the idea of this player who has to play a martial character yet completely dislikes what has historically seperated martial and magical characters from one another as silly. Its like saying it isn't fair there is no arcane healer/tank. In the case of the latter, they might say that the only possible option (eldritch knight) is a pale shadow of a true spellsword or whatever the arcane defender from 4e was called.

Eslin

2014-11-15, 01:06 AM

Go back to read my earlier post about skill contests. Simple fighters only suck if you lack imagination or have a truly lazy/unpleasant DM.

Oh and there is a feat to parry all day as well. So that's a kind of cruddy example. Actually, I guess the AC bonus from dual wielder also represents parrying (because its again an assumed part of normal combat), so that's two explicit parry type things from feats.
I'm pretty sure I've explained why that doesn't work very clearly by this point. All abilities are created with tradeoffs - the more downsides something has, the stronger it can be made. Spells can be made stronger or given greater utility because they have limited uses and a limited number of choices and because you have to pick a discrete ability. The more versatile a spell is, the more it has to pay for it - it will need to be higher level than it otherwise would be or be made less powerful. Other tradeoffs can be introduced, such as allowing forcecage to have greater power by making the caster pay to use it. This translates into fun because when you have that discrete toolkit, things can be made more useful than they otherwise would be and you can enjoy selecting the right tool for the task at hand, you are rewarded for good planning and good tactical decisions.

Now, skill and ability use is not a discrete toolkit. This is good, we need it to model everyday interaction with the world, and character classes have their own tools to complement it with, but by its very nature it has no costs aside from an opportunity cost, you pay nothing for it and it has no limits on use or usage, being infinitely versatile. This means, as you can see from the description of costing above, that it is very very weak in comparison to, say, casting a third level spell. And that's fine, that's how it should be, skill and ability action's open ended nature means they have to be balanced by being weaker in comparison to a discrete toolkit otherwise there would be no point in having such a toolkit. When I say versatile, I do not mean it in the purely positive sense someone refers to when they speak of spellcasting, versatility is only good when it's useful, and the comparative weakness of the ability/skill system means it is not very useful in comparison. Prestidigitation, for example, is absurdly versatile and often useful in the same way skill or ability checks can be, but still does not translate into usefulness in the same way a full spellcasting system does. To be sure, it's nice to have and I'm glad to have it, but pretending it pays for its open ended nature by lacking power and so pretending it is a substitute for a complete toolkit is nonsense.

To sum it up, versatility is options times power - if you have a million options and none of them more useful than just attacking over and over, then you have no options. The problem is that most martial characters have few tools to complement the system with - monks have quite a few, barbarians have almost none, but none have a toolkit that can compare to what casters get and pretending that a a system which pays so heavily in power for versatility can compete with one that does not do so is pointless.

You point him towards the half casters as a possible solution or help him expand his options within the standard system (again skill contests etc)

I think the idea of this player who has to play a martial character yet completely dislikes what has historically seperated martial and magical characters from one another as silly. Its like saying it isn't fair there is no arcane healer/tank. In the case of the latter, they might say that the only possible option (eldritch knight) is a pale shadow of a true spellsword or whatever the arcane defender from 4e was called.
No I don't, because once again some people don't want to play casters to have options. There is an arcane healer, it's called the bard, and there is an arcane tank, use a warlock(2-3)/abjurer wizard(x) build for a very passable swordmage imitation or make a bard build to do it. Again, spellcasting has versatility and utility that martials do not, if you want to make a tank then you can.
And disliking what has historically separated martial and magical characters (when? martials started getting more versatile late in 3.x and there was no separation at all in 4e) is not silly, the fact that martials and casters were seperated by one being given tools and the other not is silly. Someone disliking that gap in versatility isn't the problem, that gap in versatility itself is the problem.

infinitetech

2014-11-15, 01:38 AM

do i need to break out the druid of spectral tentacles grappling build to break up this fight?

Eslin

2014-11-15, 01:41 AM

do i need to break out the druid of spectral tentacles grappling build to break up this fight?

If you did a wizard would have far more ways of dealing with it than a fighter would =P

silveralen

2014-11-15, 01:05 PM

do i need to break out the druid of spectral tentacles grappling build to break up this fight?

Nah, it is a difference in opinion (with no right answer) that isn't going to get resolved. I'll stop :smallsmile:

infinitetech

2014-11-22, 10:51 PM

i could make them necrotic divine spectral tentacles with an extra layer of monk or two... hehe, miss the amazing old builds and love the new ones

Mirakk

2014-11-23, 12:20 AM

Eslin

2014-11-23, 12:48 AM

Way late on this, but as someone who teaches martial arts I can safely debunk this one. In fact, my preferred method of pinning a person involves me still standing on two feet while maintaining a pin. I can also pull them around by their limbs effectively while doing this. The rules make sense as-is.

Thanks for that, people saying you can't prone people grappling without being prone has gotten really annoying.

As a side note, in any case it's classic guy at the gym fallacy - even if you can't imagine doing it, letting your fantasy monk grapple someone prone while standing up should be allowed. Never err on the side of 'eh sorry I can't see how you could load with a crossbow in each hand' in a setting in which martials have to keep up with the casters that can summon meteors and create their own dimensions.

strahl35

2015-08-11, 05:57 PM

Has anyone noticed this? It's kind of ridiculous.

http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4142801

(tl;dr -- grappling is now a skill check, and skill checks are crazy abusable compared to attacks)

Yes, it definitely is broken. I am dm'ing a game...a campaign of my own creation and one of my players is a Gnome Barbarian-Druid so as such can morph into a large brown bear. He constantly uses the Grapple action and never rolls anything less than a 20 for an Athletics check so the Grapple never fails....even on creatures larger than himself such as a Gargantuan Sand Worm (that I created and modified from Purple Worm stats) In this rationale, he can grapple a creature that is much stronger than he, reduce the Worm's movement to 0 and yet still drag this significant enemy around the play area. I do not agree with these rules at all! The fact that as a Bear you can paw somebody and grapple them...and even use the other paw to grapple another monster on top of that is preposterous.

SharkForce

2015-08-11, 06:13 PM

you can't grapple a target two sizes larger than you. unless the bear was huge somehow, he wasn't grappling a gargantuan anything.

coredump

2015-08-11, 10:01 PM

Yes, it definitely is broken. I am dm'ing a game...a campaign of my own creation and one of my players is a Gnome Barbarian-Druid so as such can morph into a large brown bear. He constantly uses the Grapple action and never rolls anything less than a 20 for an Athletics check so the Grapple never fails....even on creatures larger than himself such as a Gargantuan Sand Worm (that I created and modified from Purple Worm stats) In this rationale, he can grapple a creature that is much stronger than he, reduce the Worm's movement to 0 and yet still drag this significant enemy around the play area. I do not agree with these rules at all! The fact that as a Bear you can paw somebody and grapple them...and even use the other paw to grapple another monster on top of that is preposterous.

Who said a Bear could even Grapple? That is up to the DM to determine.

A Large Bear can't Grapple a Gargantuan Worm

A Bear is Str 19, the worm is Str 29. How was the bear winning all of the time?

Lets say the Bear does grapple the worm.... so what? Now the worm attacks the bear, likely swallowing it whole, or killing it otherwise.

dropbear8mybaby

2015-08-11, 10:07 PM

If it hasn't been noted already (TLDR), grapple is pretty easy to break too. A shove from another character, or a shield bash, Pushing Attack, Eldritch Blast with Repelling Invocation, Thunderwave, etc. can break grapples.

Roderick_BR

2015-08-12, 09:39 AM

Has anyone noticed this? It's kind of ridiculous.

http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4142801

(tl;dr -- grappling is now a skill check, and skill checks are crazy abusable compared to attacks)
Well, everything looks like a skill check now with the new attribute + proficiency bonus rules.

And I still need to see where movement is all that super duper powerful. My old group barelly kept track of who were where anyway (and that was back in AD&D, and my group played 1E D&D before I started playing).

Xetheral

2015-08-12, 12:42 PM

Who said a Bear could even Grapple? That is up to the DM to determine.

A Large Bear can't Grapple a Gargantuan Worm

A Bear is Str 19, the worm is Str 29. How was the bear winning all of the time?

Lets say the Bear does grapple the worm.... so what? Now the worm attacks the bear, likely swallowing it whole, or killing it otherwise.

Ignoring the other issues for a moment:

The Bear would appear to have a +10 grapple check (or possibly +11, depending on how the DM interprets Wild Shape). The worm has a +9. However, the Bear has Advantage from Rage, and a minimum result of 20 from Indomitable Might. This works out to (brute force calculation, because it's simple): Bear outright beats the worm in the check roughly 72.69% of the time (or roughly 76.19% for +11 bonus). In either case you're right: the Bear shouldn't be winning all the time.

Amusingly, a Barbarian 1/Rogue 1/Druid 2/Anything Else 16 does better, winning roughly 89.76% (91.88% with alternate interpretation) of the time. Expertise appears to be better than Indomitable Might, at least in this situation of a contested roll with high stats.

Vogonjeltz

2015-08-12, 04:17 PM

Well, everything looks like a skill check now with the new attribute + proficiency bonus rules.

And I still need to see where movement is all that super duper powerful. My old group barelly kept track of who were where anyway (and that was back in AD&D, and my group played 1E D&D before I started playing).

1) Movement is required to stand from prone. If you get grappled and then shoved prone, you have perma-disadvantage on your attacks and enemies have perma-advantage on their attacks until the grapple can be broken (which costs you an action to even try). So it's part of a powerful combination of attacks and status effects.

2) That post was from 2014...and this appears to be some kind of thread necromancy.

coredump

2015-08-13, 02:33 AM

Guys.. keep in mind this thread is **10 months** old....

dropbear8mybaby

2015-08-13, 02:35 AM

Guys.. keep in mind this thread is **10 months** old....

So in other words, still completely relevant.

HoarsHalberd

2015-08-13, 05:58 AM

So in other words, still completely relevant.

Nope. This was written before the Errata removed the line in the Grappler feat that when misinterpreted in just the right way could make it a worthwhile feat.

Wait. Were you being sarcastic?

Btw does this forum have rules for necromancy? Because I'm seeing it more and more often.

EDIT: Yup.

Thread Necromancy
Bringing a thread back from "the dead." If a thread hasn't been posted in within the last 45 days, don't reply to it. Start a new topic, if you want to discuss the subject (you are welcome to link to the old thread). If you think it would be better to resurrect an old thread, PM a moderator for that subforum and wait for approval. The original poster of a creation in Homebrew (and only that poster) may revive a creation beyond the 45 day threshold without prior Moderator approval.

Flik9999

2015-10-19, 06:18 AM

I know this is a few months late but...

I think we can assume by the fact dragons can fly and that giants can walk about that the planet D&D is set within is not X1 gravity. For example with the jump check you can jump 32 feat horizontally without being strong and while standing still (Nat 20, +6 prof +6 expertise). Now I know no human in this world that can do that even Bruce Lee could not do that while standing still. So by this example we can assume that the gravity is at least 0.5 maybe even less. So when comparing animals say a human to a dragon, deciding whether they would they be able to grapple it. Instead of applying what a real life human and an elephant would be like, you compare say an ant to a spider or other bug which is larger than the ant. It is well known that Ants can carry 7 times thier weight. So with this gravity in mind I do believe it would be possible to grapple a dragon, though it would still need to be done right, eg positioned on the wings where the human can control the movements of the dragon.

KorvinStarmast

2015-10-19, 07:28 AM

5e development was so dedicated to being recognizably D&D, ... D&D has never presented an official "narrative" or area-based system (like MSH, FATE, or 13A or SARN-FU) for positioning."

TotM is not for new players.
Yeah, nor is it for people who have weak imaginations.

FWIW: We didn't use grids when I started playing in the mid 70's. On the other hand, we always had one player who was mapping, on graph paper, so the DM was constantly providing us with "you enter a 15' by 20' room" ... or such like that.

, and many of us even have large collections of the old toxic lead ones. I still do.

It might be for the Role v Roll demagogs of the 90s, except they've always hated D&D, and 5e is for past fans of D&D, not past critics. Yep.

Coidzor

2015-10-20, 01:41 PM

I think we can assume by the fact dragons can fly and that giants can walk about that the planet D&D is set within is not X1 gravity. For example with the jump check you can jump 32 feat horizontally without being strong and while standing still (Nat 20, +6 prof +6 expertise). Now I know no human in this world that can do that even Bruce Lee could not do that while standing still.

You shouldn't be comparing 20th level characters to Bruce Lee. Or using them to model the normative physics of D&Dland, since part of the deal with getting to high level is exceeding many mortal limitations.

MaxWilson

2015-10-21, 12:39 AM

I think we can assume by the fact dragons can fly and that giants can walk about that the planet D&D is set within is not X1 gravity. For example with the jump check you can jump 32 feat horizontally without being strong and while standing still (Nat 20, +6 prof +6 expertise).

Are you talking about some other edition? According to 5E's jumping rules on PHB 182, the PC you describe can jump five feet horizontally from a standing start, not thirty-two feet.

Malifice

2015-10-21, 12:54 AM

I think we can assume by the fact dragons can fly and that giants can walk about that the planet D&D is set within is not X1 gravity.

Yet another 'rules = physics engine' argument!

As a counter argument: 'because, magic'.

On topic, I recommend allowing legendary creatures to expend a use of legendary resistance to auto pass a skill check they just failed.

Makes solo encoutners what they should be.

Dark Schneider

2018-11-04, 04:55 AM

Unoriginal

2018-11-04, 05:02 AM

Dark Schneider

2018-11-04, 05:28 AM

Aett_Thorn

2018-11-04, 07:11 AM

OK but we are starting now with 5E so all this is new for us.

What I see is that with this stuff is much easier to defeat some creatures. I.e. grapple a Lich into a Silence area (no saving throw) and then hit it like crazy with everybody. You nullify all its spells with V component.

We get that it might be new to you, but there is probably newer and more relevant info out there than a 4-year old thread.

But welcome to 5e! It’s a lot of fun!

sophontteks

2018-11-04, 07:47 AM

I think many people are overestimating the grappled status. It only reduces movement to 0, and for that:

- You sacrifice an attack.
- You lose the use of one hand, so no shield, 2 weapons, or 2-handed weapon. As usually the high STR are fighters, is an important loss.
- I am reading much about put the foe "prone", the grapple rule does not says anything like that. The grappler can't do that, it should be made by an ally, like a spell. In that case, I see a good team play. In fact, I see it like an excellent tactic.
- It is not so hard to avoid, casters have spells to put you safe (like 2nd lvl Misty Step), rogues or monks are good on Acrobatics (DEX), and fighters are good on Athletics (STR). If the weak target, casters, didn't prepared something to defend against it, that's their fault.

I think is the Shove action the most problematic one, that one yes really puts the foe prone. And because it takes only 1 attack, if you have multiple, you could Shove foe, and when prone use the other attacks with advantage.
This thread is old info. There is new info about grappling. Its actually amazing utility and you are underestimating it. I've built my barbarian around it and its awesome.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468737-The-Grappler-s-Manual-(2-0)-Grappling-in-5th-Edition

Remember reducing an opponents speed to zero means they cant get up from prone. You also can move the opponent at half your speed and push them over cliffs or into hazardous terrain. And a grappped opponent can't run from you and into your back line.

And if you look at the MM very few creatures have profeciency in athletics or acrobatics.

My barbarian has tavern brawler, so he can grapple while using a shield, or grapple two opponents and simply headbutt them for damage.