Dm choice and raw

[MukkTB]

There are a few things I want to address in this OP.

#1 The RAW in many cases is just "Whatever your DM wants." This isn't limited to just fluff and edge cases or extreme cheese. There are core parts of the game where you can literally stumble over cases of this. In my opinion the rules have unnecessary ambiguities. Some of them are intentional design choices like the skill system. What skills do by RAW is extremely limited, and use of skills is almost entirely up to DM fiat. However other cases of this occur when two rules interact in a way that doesn't seem intentional or clear. When facing them people have tried to construct arguments that RAW indicates one way or another. It doesn't. The clearest example of this is to tweet a designer asking for clarification on a point and have him respond with the statement, "Your DM will make the ruling one way or the other." At best the playground can generate a 'best practices' answer. The solution that the majority of us support. That's about it. The very nature of 5e is dependent on DM judgments about how to interpret ambiguous RAW. To pretend otherwise is to misrepresent the edition.

#2 I hate this state of affairs, particularly with regard to unintended ambiguity. I get along with the people I play with, so we can work out problems and it isn't a big deal in actual play. I just don't like leaving RAW dependent on the DM in that way when it isn't an extreme edge case or bizarre cheese. I'd prefer an edition that was ordered enough that it had fewer unintended ambiguities in its core rules. I also don't like the shift in power from the player to the DM. In 3.5 the player may have had too much, especially if a player forced splat books into the game the DM couldn't handle. But here in every possible case where something might fall into the player's influence or the DM's it seems that 5e turns to the DM and hands him the power. At the very least I don't think its unreasonable to have a slightly creative build and know if you could sit down and use it for an official event or not.

#3 I recognize that Wizards' design philosophy is counter to my own. They seem to have made a conscious choice to make 5e the way that it is. Its not entirely just some accident. As such, is it a good design philosophy? Does it make the game better to be this way, or did they make a mistake?

[McBars]

I do think it is a good design philosophy; simply put, a good DM looks to make the game fun for the entire table. The more responsibility given to a good DM who pursues fun for everyone above all else, the better. If a DM does not prioritize fun, then your game will suck regardless of edition. I like to think that in addition to putting control back into the DM's hands, 5e also emphasizes how important the people you play with are.

[tcrudisi]

This, above all else, has been my biggest gripe with 5e. As a player, I'm confused as to what exactly the rules are. I went to a gaming convention last weekend and played in some games. The spread of rules across the 6 tables I played at was ... chaotic. I did not enjoy it. Instead of focusing on the scenario and immersing myself in it, I felt as though I was having to figure out each individual DM and their rules.

As a DM, its even worse. The game is forcing me to spend time thinking about balance and rules ambiguities when I should be focusing on the story and helping the players have fun. The system is not making it easy for me. Compared to previous editions where we know the rules and can apply them immediately, leaving ambiguities up to me is just an unnecessary distraction that I do not desire.

I'm holding out hope that they'll fix a lot of these things in the DMG later this month. If not, I'll look at their upcoming releases and if I don't see a PHB 2 or something which implies that it has more rules on the way, then my group will be dropping 5e and moving on to another system. I've been saying online that I felt the rules were incomplete. One of my players said it best: "It feels like we're beta-testing this system." And that's being said by the guy who likes the system the most out of my group - but even he is indifferent about it.

[Giant2005]

I agree that the rules need to be as defined as possible.
When making a character you need to be able to know that he is capable of doing what you want him to be doing, otherwise you could be going back to the drawing board dozens of times before finally settling on something that actually functions as intended.
You could spend days talking with the DM prior to character creation and going over every possible nuance but that is obviously less favourable than having the book define those qualities and more reliable too.

[Kurald Galain]

Question: has organized play (like living forgotten realms, or whatever they're calling it now) started for 5E? Because these ambiguities in the rules will surely affect the organized play platform.

[Rallicus]

Question: has organized play (like living forgotten realms, or whatever they're calling it now) started for 5E? Because these ambiguities in the rules will surely affect the organized play platform.

There's Adventurers League, but I don't really know the details.

Anyway I feel the opposite. The ambiguity gives me a much easier time with prep and it minimizes distractions during game time. I don't think it's a bad thing that this edition favors dms.

I do see the problem this poses when it comes to organized play though.

[Gurka]

I think what WotC should consider is either an online compendium or even a sourcebook devoted to organized play that covers all of the common ambiguities in the system, of which there are many. The number of things left up to DM interpretation really is an issue for pickup games in your local store between (essentially) strangers. Personally, I detest that kind of organized play anyway, so it doesn't affect me, but even as one who doesn't engage in it, I see the problem this ruleset represents in that environment.

That aside, I very much prefer most of the intentional gray areas included in the rules, such as improvised actions and skills. I find that it actually frees me (as DM) up for MORE storytelling, and less time focused on rules. Plus, as much as everybody always agrees that the DM has the final word... with some previous editions, extremely specific rules have frequently ended up with disagreement between players, and even argument with the DM over how things work when there IS a situation that doesn't 100% fit. Not so, this time around... When the basic functionality says explicitly "ask your DM", not everybody always likes it, but nobody argues with it.

The way we handle it around here, when something ambiguous crops up, is that the DM makes a quick judgment on the spot, and we write it down, and play continues. After the session and/or before the next game, some or all of us talk about the situation(s) in question, decide if we like how it was handled or if we should do it differently in the future, and record it in our big book if table conventions.

There are some unintended rules problems for sure, and I hope there will be some errata out soon to cover most of it, but it's pretty minor.

[silveralen]

My best experiences with dnd come from 2nd edition, where the DM was practically expected to make changes to the system and skills as a whole completely optional. So it doesn't bother me.

Then again, I have never enjoyed organized play, much preferring to do so with a group of friends. With those people, it works amazing. For organized play.... I could see it getting very frustrating very fast.

[Bubzors]

The way we handle it around here, when something ambiguous crops up, is that the DM makes a quick judgment on the spot, and we write it down, and play continues. After the session and/or before the next game, some or all of us talk about the situation(s) in question, decide if we like how it was handled or if we should do it differently in the future, and record it in our big book if table conventions.


This is exactly what we do also. That way the game continues, and if some felt that the ruling was quite up to par we can fix it for next time. I can see how this messes with organized play at a convention or something, but honestly I don't care. I play with my close friends to have a good time and drink a few beers.

Also, I feel like the way the rules are this edition have increased our enjoyment of the game. Instead of spending 5 minutes looking up some minutia rule on this very specific action like in 3.5, I as DM just determine a logical way of resolving it, whether that means roleplay or a simple skill/ability check, and continue on.. It leads to a mroe fluid and in game way of playing. My players have voiced their approval that they think less in rules terms and more about what their character would be doing in the situation.

[Likantropos]

As a DM, I've always seen the rules of the roleplaying games more like guidelines, then like laws. You can never make a ruleset, that would encompass all the possibilities ever, so (if your players aren't playing an offline version of WoW) sooner or later DM would have to improvise. Forcing him to do so from the very start is good. Less stumbling, less rails, less "you can't do that because there's no such skill in the book". It returns D&D back to when it was a roleplaying game, not a boardgame like 4e.

[Z3ro]

I'm not sure where the attitude that 5E places too much power in the DM's hands comes from. DMs have always had absolute power; even in rules-heavy systems like 3.5, a DM could arbitrarily change whatever they want. Heck, they change rule once the first time, then the opposite the next. A bad DM is a bad DM regardless of system.

[Seto]

While reading my post, keep in mind that I discovered roleplaying by spending several years in a full-rp (no mechanics whatsoever, the rules being mutual agreement and admin's decision) PbP forum.

Now, granted, the game wasn't similar to D&D at all, the important fights being PvP and fights against NPCs serving only as an occasion for character development. But I can say that in favour of a rules-light system, (which D&D is not by any means, but 5e is that more than 3.5) or a rules-ambiguous system : too many rules create a mindset which can limit your playing experience. What I mean is that, although you have tons of rules helping you do stuff, they can't cover all possibilities : therefore, in the absence of a rule, discomfort appears : "Hey, there's no rule, it's probably something I can't do, or can't do realistically, let's do something less original because I know the mechanics for it" (admittedly this is grossly simplified).
When you have less rules, you paradoxically have more options ; internal coherence is not even intrinsically necessary. I know that's not what everyone is looking for, and besides it takes a group that gets along really well. But that's just my general plead in favor of a rules-light system.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not sure where the attitude that 5E places too much power in the DM's hands comes from.
The complaint isn't "DMs have too much power", but rather "the rules contain numerous common holes and ambiguities" (which may slow down DMs depending on their style, and may cause issues with Living campaigns and/or groups with multiple DMs).


I can say that in favour of a rules-light system, (which D&D is not by any means, but 5e is that more than 3.5) or a rules-ambiguous system
Most rules-light systems aren't rules-ambiguous; and most rules-ambiguous systems aren't rules-light.

[Seto]

Most rules-light systems aren't rules-ambiguous; and most rules-ambiguous systems aren't rules-light.

That's true. I was implying : if you can't decide on the meaning of a rule, maybe it would be better to remove it altogether and go about it whatever way you, as a group, prefer.

[DiBastet]

much preferring to do so with a group of friends. With those people, it works amazing

That's exactly my opinion. I also play World of Warcraft with people who don't play tabletop rpg (it's even funny when people who like lore think blizzard created every idea in the games, like spell schools, the races, spell names, etc...), and many times when I have to explain how tabletop works I compare gaming to raiding: It's something that you do with your friends, not only for the results (killing boss, getting loot / finishing adventure, getting xp) but for the experience (having fun together with your friends). There is the possibility of playing with strangers (organized play / looking for raid) that allow you to enjoy the mechanics a little (see the raid content / play the rules), but that doesn't have the best part, the interaction. Some people have no other option (no group to play / no raiding group), while some do but prefer this "mechanics only" approach.

That aside, I really like the rulings over rules, but I can see issues arising in LFR, I mean, Organized Play.

[Selkirk]

i actually wish my dm would use more ambiguity/hand waving with some rulings :D. we are playing pretty much raw and it feels too tight at times-everything is a roll. but even with raw it's still fairly light for the most part-i can see how games might vary from dm to dm tho. course as noted above...hasn't this always been the case with d&d? :smallbiggrin:

[Shadow]

I also don't like the shift in power from the player to the DM.

Does it make the game better to be this way, or did they make a mistake?

In my opinion this is the biggest strength of the edition.


My best experiences with dnd come from 2nd edition,

And this is the reason that I hold that opinion.
Give it a real chance. Once your players get used to the concept, the game becomes much more organic. Some players will cry "But I want to know exactly what my character is capable of, and I want it listed on my character sheet," but those players don't realize that their options haven't been limited, they've been liberated.

[Vowtz]

Ambiguity has official backup from 5e developers. Each DM will have different inputs on a lot of rules, and a lot of decisions will have to be made on the fly.

Thats a poor design choice.

On top of creating his campaign, interpreting all NPCs, controlling the flow of the game and narrating all enviroment, your DM now has to decide how the many ambiguous rules will be played on his specific game.

You will also have to ask how your DM interpret some rules before finishing your character if he depends on a specific ability to play the way you want.


Ambiguous rules are not the same thing as complicared rules. Simplicity is welcome, ambiguity is not.

[Selkirk]

dmg should help things...terrible misstep to have it running so late. but still the framework is solid- people can read ambiguity where they want too. it's a breath of fresh air for me.

[Shadow]

Most rules-light systems aren't rules-ambiguous; and most rules-ambiguous systems aren't rules-light.

The ONLY reason that people are having issues with the so-called "ambiguities" is because they're so used to looking for loopholes and exploits from 3.x & 4e.
If those players would forget everything that they knew about previous editions and focus on what was intended and the spirit of the game, then these so-called "ambiguities" wouldn't even be noticed.
Drop the rules lawyer midset from the past two editions and the game plays extremely well. Those so-called "ambiguities" become boons rather than points of contention that the DM and players rule and consider with common sense based on individual situations rather than loooking up page 247 of rulebook number 14.

[Theodoxus]

I'm gonna say there's two opposing views on this for me. On the one hand, as a DM with a small regular group, I like the freedom of the more ambiguous rules, as I can decide what works for the group. I hand wave a lot of the minutia away anyway (coming from Pathfinder) - so having that as part of the core rules of 5th is very nice.

On the other hand, as a player in a AL group that has 4 DMs circulating through, getting a consensus on some rules is impossible. For these cases (and really, AL in general for everyone) I agree that WotC needs to put out an AL rulebook that actually clarifies a lot of the ambiguity. I realize that doing so could potentially hamper DMs who appreciate the free-form nature of the game - especially if they have players in AL or interested and reading AL related product. But that kinda goes back to DMs with Sack.

It's an interesting conundrum. I'm very interested in seeing how it ultimately plays out.

[Fwiffo86]

{ scrubbed }

This also give the impression of being on a high horse.

[Gurka]

{ scrubbed }

I'm confused at how the post that link takes us to pertains.

Besides, whether somebody is right, wrong, humble, arrogant, or a pickle is completely immaterial to the point he was making above (if I haven't misinterpreted that is).

The point is that it ultimately doesn't matter how you read the rules or what interpretation the phrasing in the book leads you to. His point was that the rules are left vague and open so that they can encompass many more variables and situations. They're intended to be read MANY ways, to suit those many situations, rather than to be just one square peg to hammer into holes of many shapes.

Lots of people don't like that, and that's OK. I think it's what the designers were going for though. I think it's what Shadow was trying to get at, and I rather like things that way.

Or I could be wrong on all of that.

Or I could be a pickle.

[Shadow]

{ scrubbed }

You mean the post two weeks after the PHB was released in which I say "It's still DM fiat, just like everything in the game (which I love)"?
That one?

Because if that's the post you're refering to, then all it does is illustrate and prove my point.
Every table can work differently, to that particular table's needs, even if those needs run counter to what the designers had in mind, and those decisions are fully supported in the basic rule set.
This is a strength, not a weakness. So thank you for linking that to us.

[Knaight]

As a DM, I've always seen the rules of the roleplaying games more like guidelines, then like laws. You can never make a ruleset, that would encompass all the possibilities ever, so (if your players aren't playing an offline version of WoW) sooner or later DM would have to improvise. Forcing him to do so from the very start is good. Less stumbling, less rails, less "you can't do that because there's no such skill in the book".

This doesn't follow. Just because some amount of rules-improvisation is needed doesn't mean that fewer rules are inherently better - and this is particularly true as regards ambiguities, where there is a rule, and there are multiple sensible interpretations of it.

Plus, it's not like ambiguous wording helps with covering more things. Broadly defined cases do (e.g. the unified difficulty scale, the general attribute/skill check system, so on and so forth).

[JoeJ]

I think the game is much better for focusing on DM rulings rather than comprehensive rules. It gives the players so many more options, although you do need a DM who is comfortable making a quick decision and getting on with the game.

To use an example from another thread, suppose a PC wants to leap up onto a convenient boulder and do a flip over the head of a bugbear so that they can attack from behind before the bugbear can turn around to face them. In 3.PF what would likely happen is that the game would come to a halt so the DM can look up a bunch of rules, and in the end discover that it's either not possible at all, or that even if it succeeds the result would be worse than just standing toe-to-toe and making a full attack.

But what is actually needed to resolve this in a game? Most of us have seen enough action movies to immediately realize that a flashy move like this should be risky, but confer a significant benefit if it works. So the DM needs to decide what ability the player uses to make the attempt, how difficult it is, and what the results of success or failure should be. When I came up with this example it took me less than two seconds to decide that a hard Acrobatics roll should do it, with success giving the PC advantage on their first attack and failure meaning they fall prone.

Are these the only possible decisions? Of course not! I could just as easily have said that a very hard DEX-based Athletics roll is needed, success gives advantage on all attacks this round, and failure means the bugbear gets an OA with advantage. There are many different but equally good ways this could be ruled, and none of them require more than a few seconds thought by the DM. The player then either goes for it and rolls the dice, or they try something else.

This is the first version of D&D I've known (I never played 4e, so I won't say anything about it.) where it would not just be possible to adjudicate Legolas jumping up onto an oliphaunt, but actually easy to do so. To me, that's huge.

[Knaight]

I think the game is much better for focusing on DM rulings rather than comprehensive rules. It gives the players so many more options, although you do need a DM who is comfortable making a quick decision and getting on with the game.

The thing about rulings is that they work best if there's a strong rules framework to make them in (unless you're going full freeform). That doesn't necessarily mean a rules heavy system, but it does make ambiguous wordings up helpful.

[cobaltstarfire]

This is actually a really confusing thing for me, because I don't find 5e to be very ambiguous at all. The rules all make sense to me, and what few haven't it was because I was reading too fast and misread something, or I was accidentally applying old rules don't apply or exist in this version.

Meanwhile, I've always felt that many of the rules in 3.5 simply don't make sense, like I read them there's a lot of words, but I still don't really understand many of them very well. Although it may largely be lack of system mastery since there are so many different rules that interact with and modify each other, which helps in leaving me feeling like I'm missing something.

I've played a couple of months of adventure league, and none of the others who have come have shown any sign of being confused or uncertain about the rules and what they could do either.

[pwykersotz]

I love the ambiguity. It makes for a much cleaner and faster game. As everyone else has said, looking up four different rules across multiple books to judge a simple action gets annoying. I'd much rather wing the number.

There is, however, a proviso. I believe that my players deserve consistency. I won't have a DC 12 power-slide work with an 11 for one player and fail on a 18 for another without a very good explanation, possibly in advance of the check. "You're wearing Heavy Armor compared to the Rogue who is smaller an unencumbered. This'll be tough, are you sure?"

[Z3ro]

This is actually a really confusing thing for me, because I don't find 5e to be very ambiguous at all.


I think I may have figured it out, because I share this attitude, but others on the board can tell me if they agree/disagree:

In 3.5, for example, rules were laid out and expected to have clear meanings. They often didn't, but at least an effort was made to address the fact that, yes, there is one correct way for the rules to work.

In 5E, the designers basically said, "here's what we got. If there's an issue, just make something up". Now, this is what many people ended up doing anyway, but without the assurance that there is a single correct way to rule things, some people are feeling like they're doing the designers jobs, which can be off-putting.

Or am I way off?

[MaxWilson]

When you leave rulings up to the DM, it's important to have a DM who has a good grasp of probability. Otherwise he can end up making rulings that are contrary to the results he desires. For example, imagine a DM who thinks of DC 10 as "easy", and so has everyone roll a DC 10 check to climb a tree without falling out during combat. His intentions are good--he just thinks dice rolls make things more interesting--but the result is that one-quarter to one-half of the PCs, depending on Acrobatics skill, will fail at this simple task which, by RAW, doesn't require a roll at all. And when someone falls out of a tree two times in a row, he will probably view this as surprising and interesting, when in fact it's a fairly-likely consequence of the rule he just made, without realizing it.

This is a Heisenburg effect. Your chance of success or failure on a task is dependent on whether or not the DM is watching and trying to make it more interesting.

I'm not saying you can get away from this by producing more rules, just noting one of the factors that makes on-the-spot DM rulings more or less successful.

[Selkirk]

I think I may have figured it out, because I share this attitude, but others on the board can tell me if they agree/disagree:

In 3.5, for example, rules were laid out and expected to have clear meanings. They often didn't, but at least an effort was made to address the fact that, yes, there is one correct way for the rules to work.

In 5E, the designers basically said, "here's what we got. If there's an issue, just make something up". Now, this is what many people ended up doing anyway, but without the assurance that there is a single correct way to rule things, some people are feeling like they're doing the designers jobs, which can be off-putting.

Or am I way off?

i don't think you're way off. just a matter of style and sensibility-people like different sorts of games. i actually want fewer/looser rules on some things in 5e..not more :D. the system does weigh heavily on dm's however(i think moreso than players to a large degree-the players are gonna play the game..and yes, look for every exploit real and imagined).

dm's that are used to 3.5 systems will, at least at first, want everything codified...and i still think you can run a very strict 'raw' game in 5e-and again dmg will help things. i see the flexibility in the system as strength not weakness. the 5e core/engine is robust enough to handle the 'loose' areas.

a note on style - i can't even make a character in pathfinder (yes i have tried :D). but i can see the appeal of pathfinder-i actually enjoy all the mechanical/crunchy stuff but getting system mastery is too much of a chore. 5e strikes a nice balance imo.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think I may have figured it out, because I share this attitude, but others on the board can tell me if they agree/disagree:

In 3.5, for example, rules were laid out and expected to have clear meanings. They often didn't, but at least an effort was made to address the fact that, yes, there is one correct way for the rules to work.

In 5E, the designers basically said, "here's what we got. If there's an issue, just make something up". Now, this is what many people ended up doing anyway, but without the assurance that there is a single correct way to rule things, some people are feeling like they're doing the designers jobs, which can be off-putting.

Or am I way off?

I feel like it might be something like that.

I think from my perspective the intention is made clear with 5e's rules even if they don't have many hard parts. But 3.5's rules is just a bunch of hard parts that apply in a particular way but don't much tell me the implications of the rule. (maybe if I used my phb instead of the srd it'd be easier...)

[Knaight]

In 5E, the designers basically said, "here's what we got. If there's an issue, just make something up". Now, this is what many people ended up doing anyway, but without the assurance that there is a single correct way to rule things, some people are feeling like they're doing the designers jobs, which can be off-putting.

It's more that 5e doesn't seem to have decided what sort of game it is in some ways, and the ambiguities are downright irritating. I don't have an issue with making things up - my favorite game s Fudge, which is a borderline design-tool kit full of variants, options, etc. I mean, it has three default combat systems you pick between, not even getting into the optional subsystems.

The issue is one of clarity. I'm not averse to making judgement calls, but the context in which they are made needs to be clear. The unified difficulty scale which the GM uses to rate tasks is an excellent addition. Vague wording where the designers aren't even clear on what they're saying? Less so.

[Theodoxus]

I feel like it might be something like that.

I think from my perspective the intention is made clear with 5e's rules even if they don't have many hard parts. But 3.5's rules is just a bunch of hard parts that apply in a particular way but don't much tell me the implications of the rule. (maybe if I used my phb instead of the srd it'd be easier...)

I don't want to sound harsh, but this is why you're confused. We've been talking RAW, and you're talking RAI. Few of us have any problem with RAI - though trying to get behind the designers intentions is sometimes problematic (especially when two of them tweet three different answers).

What some of us want (specifically for AL, but I'll take anything) is for things like halfling hiding in combat (not to dredge up that insane conversation, but it's an excellent example). You might feel the intention is that halflings can hide regardless of what the enemy might or might not see. I might feel the intention is that the enemy is always noticing everything in battle. It's a pretty simple rule - yet complicated by a ruling because a rule wasn't codified.

There are plenty of ambiguous rulings like this - and for the vast majority of them, they appear to be lazy editing/writing and not actual 'we're kind fuzzy on if they should work this way or not, so ask your DM' type situations.

Outside of that, skill DCs are remarkably undefined. As noted above, if a DM feels that a 10 is easy and sets a climb check as a 10, yet half the party fails, it's not really easy. Yet the PHB doesn't even provide guidelines outside of 'easy, moderate, hard, insane' - but leaves that up to the DM to suss out. And that's 4 months without guidance from a DMG. In the end, it doesn't matter - but it does leave a sour taste in wondering where the priorities of the devs were when writing these up.

[Z3ro]

Outside of that, skill DCs are remarkably undefined. As noted above, if a DM feels that a 10 is easy and sets a climb check as a 10, yet half the party fails, it's not really easy. Yet the PHB doesn't even provide guidelines outside of 'easy, moderate, hard, insane' - but leaves that up to the DM to suss out. And that's 4 months without guidance from a DMG. In the end, it doesn't matter - but it does leave a sour taste in wondering where the priorities of the devs were when writing these up.

Not to derail, but I'm confused. The PHB is very clear on skill checsk; DC5 is very easy, DC10 is easy, etc. It's up to the DM to both know his party (and their related skills) and the effect they want to generate when setting the DC. More (or clearer) rules won't prevent DMs from making DCs too easy or too hard.

[MaxWilson]

Not to derail, but I'm confused. The PHB is very clear on skill checsk; DC5 is very easy, DC10 is easy, etc. It's up to the DM to both know his party (and their related skills) and the effect they want to generate when setting the DC. More (or clearer) rules won't prevent DMs from making DCs too easy or too hard.

That's why the remedy suggested in #32 is not "more rules" but "better grasp of probability theory." The onus is on the DM to understand how difficult the roll he requires actually is. Is "make a DC 10 check every round to avoid falling off the rope bridge" actually easy? To know the answer you have to know some math.

[McBars]

That's why the remedy suggested in #32 is not "more rules" but "better grasp of probability theory." The onus is on the DM to understand how difficult the roll he requires actually is. Is "make a DC 10 check every round to avoid falling off the rope bridge" actually easy? To know the answer you have to know some math.

Maybe so, but not too much (at least I don't think so.) Certainly no more than you need to run any other edition of D&D

[MaxWilson]

Maybe so, but not too much (at least I don't think so.) Certainly no more than you need to run any other edition of D&D

I'll agree there. d20 systems always have wonky probability. At least advantage/disadvantage makes it less wonky and more bell-curved, so 5E is better than most previous D&D editions in this regard.

[cobaltstarfire]

Well I definitely agree that adventurers league does need its rules to be codified with accepted rulings, fortunately there aren't many rules that need anything like that. I really do hope that the ones that are truely problematic, like the mentioned halfling thing gets errata'd. (I honestly think the developers are just hiding behind RAI for some instances).


This does kind of give some insight though, it's a playstyle difference I guess?

I'm afraid I'm very much incapable of separating RAI from RAW though, for me either the rules make sense or they don't. There isn't any splitting hairs for me.

I think that the skill system the DC's are just...off. Not the skill system itself, just the DC's feel like they'll only work right at certain levels. (If all the PC's should be able to climb that tree without fail, than the DM is wrong for making them roll, it says right in the rules that rolling is only for when the results are uncertain)

[MunkeeGamer]

I think they did a good thing. They had a big challenge going up against the behemoth that was 3.5. To make matters worse, whoever wasn't happy with 3.5 had PF. And whoever didn't enjoy PF had 4.0. How do you offer something new to a market that is saturated, fat, and happy? I would not enjoy being in their shoes at all.

That said, they took the challenge. They got the people together and tried to decide what sort of thing they could put out that was definitely new and different and perceived as an improvement. What they found out is that everyone wanted more of their favorite edition. So they came up with with what 5.0 ended up being.

I say, Bravo. I haven't had my table play it yet but everything I've seen so far makes me happy. And I'm a picky guy.

[Slipperychicken]

Until the DMG comes out, I don't think it's appropriate to make so many criticisms about the DM's role and choices in 5e. Once it's out, then we'll have a much better perspective on how DMing is supposed to work, and will be in a better position to criticize it.

[Xetheral]

The ONLY reason that people are having issues with the so-called "ambiguities" is because they're so used to looking for loopholes and exploits from 3.x & 4e.

Shadow, I for one have a problem with the ambiguities, yet have no interest in loopholes and exploits. I don't allow loopholes and exploits in my games, and don't use them on the rare opportunities I get to be a player. The ambiguities still bother me because they interfere with the ability of the rules to facilitate shared expectations between the DM and the players.

Regardless of whether the rules are comprehensive or sparse, when two people can read the same rule and reach different conclusions it results in less fun at the table. For example, when someone's character doesn't work the way they expected, or when people have different expectations about how good a character is at a particular task, everyone has less fun.

Can the problems be worked out at the table? Absolutely: ambiguities are rarely fatal to a game... but they still detract from the experience in any system.

[Safety Sword]

Until the DMG comes out, I don't think it's appropriate to make so many criticisms about the DM's role and choices in 5e. Once it's out, then we'll have a much better perspective on how DMing is supposed to work, and will be in a better position to criticize it.

5E is a dream to DM compared to 3.5E. Just try making characters.

I think that if everyone just assumes that the designers have some idea of what they were doing and you read the rules without the mindset that you need to exploit them or have the "most powerful" character you'll enjoy it.

3.5E requires a high level of understanding of the system to make a viable character. Taking the wrong feat or having a feat read a different way can destroy a build. 5E can allow you to make any character and still contribute to all facets of the game.

Just take a reasonable reading of any rule and don't try to power game this system.

[Xetheral]

Just take a reasonable reading of any rule and don't try to power game this system.

From what I've seen on this forum, reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations even when no one is trying to power game. (I'm not trying to imply that everyone here is reasonable, but there are enough who even, even amongst those who I tend to disagree with.)

[Safety Sword]

From what I've seen on this forum, reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations even when no one is trying to power game. (I'm not trying to imply that everyone here is reasonable, but there are enough who even, even amongst those who I tend to disagree with.)

I would suggest that we might have different lists, but between reasonable people rules questions can usually be decided by just talking it through. It works better in person than it does trying to argue with strangers on the internet.

There's always Rule #0 to fall back on, too.

[Shadow]

I would suggest that we might have different lists, but between reasonable people rules questions can usually be decided by just talking it through. It works better in person than it does trying to argue with strangers on the internet.

There's always Rule #0 to fall back on, too.

And that was my point.
In those situations it's almost always the case that one party was attempting something that clearly wasn't intended. On a forum this leads to an argument. If it becomes an argument at the table, then it's almost guaranteed that one party was trying to game the system.
If you have any questions about how something should or will be interpreted, ask your DM. If you're the DM, make the call. I don't understand what's so hard about this or why people have a problem with it.

[Kurald Galain]

The ONLY reason that people are having issues with the so-called "ambiguities" is because they're so used to looking for loopholes and exploits from 3.x & 4e.
Not at all. Numerous players value consistency. Ambiguous rules will cause inconsistency (1) in lengthy campaigns, unless the DM writes down all his prior rulings (which most DMs don't), and (2) in any group that shares or rotates DMs, and (3) in public "living" campaigns.


From what I've seen on this forum, reasonable people can disagree on the interpretations even when no one is trying to power game.
Precisely.

[Safety Sword]

Also, power gamers are not reasonable people :smallbiggrin:

[Gurka]

Not at all. Numerous players value consistency. Ambiguous rules will cause inconsistency (1) in lengthy campaigns, unless the DM writes down all his prior rulings (which most DMs don't), and (2) in any group that shares or rotates DMs, and (3) in public "living" campaigns.

You're absolutely correct that many players, myself included, value consistency. The assertion that most DMs don't log their house-rules though, I find dubious. It's possible that you're right, but my personal experience is exactly the opposite. Not only do I note down any rule tweaks that I use, but so have almost all of the DMs I've played multi-session games with. In my game groupThe old game store where I used to live even had a big board with the local rules they used in organized play for 3.x. I know that my anecdotal experience is not a wide enough sample size to say what the average DM will do (neither, I suspect, is yours) but I can say with certainty that it's not a difficult thing to keep track of, unless you're making sweeping changes to the game.

As for groups that share and rotate DMs, as my old group used to, we all talked about and shared our thoughts on rule changes, and made sure everybody had a copy of our group-errata. Again, just my personal experience, but everybody liked it that way, a lot.

Lastly comes organized play, and although I have seen it, it's nowhere near reasonable to expect the average game store to maintain a standard local-errata. This edition is just not well tailored for open play right now. As I have said in other posts, I really think open play needs either an ongoing official blog devoted to it (by WotC), or a dedicated sourcebook in order for it to be viable.

[MaxWilson]

You're absolutely correct that many players, myself included, value consistency. The assertion that most DMs don't log their house-rules though, I find dubious. It's possible that you're right, but my personal experience is exactly the opposite. Not only do I note down any rule tweaks that I use, but so have almost all of the DMs I've played multi-session games with.

Of course you log house rules. Definitionally. The consistency question is primarily about rulings and one-offs. If you make a bad guy who can grapple with a rope, do you log a house rule that "grappling is possible with ropes"? If you force someone to make a DC 10 check to not fall off a cliff when a strong gust of wind starts blowing, do you log that "not getting pushed off balance by a stiff breeze is DC 10"? I'm not saying you don't log that kind of thing, but the mere existence of a log says nothing about how consistent your rulings are compared to a formal rule.

[Gurka]

Of course you log house rules. Definitionally. The consistency question is primarily about rulings and one-offs. If you make a bad guy who can grapple with a rope, do you log a house rule that "grappling is possible with ropes"? If you force someone to make a DC 10 check to not fall off a cliff when a strong gust of wind starts blowing, do you log that "not getting pushed off balance by a stiff breeze is DC 10"? I'm not saying you don't log that kind of thing, but the mere existence of a log says nothing about how consistent your rulings are compared to a formal rule.

To extrapolate your example, the alternative to making a judgment call regarding wind is to what... Have an appendix in the rulebook for what difficulty modifiers various degrees of wind impose on athletics or acrobatics checks?

How about one for moisture! Gotta know the viscosity of the fluid in question though!

Relative gravity would have an effect on other planets or planes! Gotta have a chart for that.

Oh, and what kind of surface are you on!

Where does it end?

DMs have always needed to make judgment calls, and honestly I don't want to play a game where you have to look up the minutia of every tiny factor to play.

Is it an easy, hard, or really hard cliff to climb? These are what we need to know. The tasks have difficulty guidelines to follow when in doubt.

Edit: last sentence was unclear. Various difficulties have DC guidelines for the checks involved.

[Safety Sword]

DMs have always needed to make judgment calls, and honestly I don't want to play a game where you have to look up the minutia of every tiny factor to play.

Is it an easy, hard, or really hard cliff to climb? These are what we need to know. The tasks have difficulty guidelines to follow when in doubt.

Making judgement calls is a big part of the "at the table" part of DMing.

What the hell else do we do except judging the outcomes of PC actions? It's the gig you signed up for when you put the screen in front of your dice.

[Knaight]

What the hell else do we do except judging the outcomes of PC actions? It's the gig you signed up for when you put the screen in front of your dice.

There's a huge amount of decisions involving events, who shows up when, NPC dialog, so on and so forth. Really, there's just a whole bunch that isn't finagling the mechanics, and quite honestly I'd rather spend GMing time on that than dealing with rules ambiguities. I'd also rather do that than just handle the rules side of rules heavy systems for an inordinate amount of time, which is a large part of where my preference for 5e over 3e comes in.

[MaxWilson]

To extrapolate your example, the alternative to making a judgment call regarding wind is to what... Have an appendix in the rulebook for what difficulty modifiers various degrees of wind impose on athletics or acrobatics checks?

We're talking about consistency here, so one alternative to making a judgment call and not logging it is to make a judgment call and log it (and possibly generalize it later into a house rule). It's up to you whether you do that or not, but I'm responding to the claim that everybody logs everything. I don't think they do.

[JoeJ]

Of course you log house rules. Definitionally. The consistency question is primarily about rulings and one-offs. If you make a bad guy who can grapple with a rope, do you log a house rule that "grappling is possible with ropes"? If you force someone to make a DC 10 check to not fall off a cliff when a strong gust of wind starts blowing, do you log that "not getting pushed off balance by a stiff breeze is DC 10"? I'm not saying you don't log that kind of thing, but the mere existence of a log says nothing about how consistent your rulings are compared to a formal rule.

There's no need to log rulings, since they deal with unique events. Grappling with ropes needs to be logged or remembered somehow because it's a house rule that might come into play again and again. (And because it's dead certain that at least one player will ask you if their character can do it too. You'll need to be able to explain either how they can do it or why they can't.) The cliff ruling, OTOH, wasn't a general rule but a ruling about the difficulty of standing on that cliff, in that weather. A different cliff, or even the same cliff on a different day might be easier or harder so consistency isn't necessary. If/when it happens, you just make whatever ruling seems best at that time.

[Gurka]

We're talking about consistency here, so one alternative to making a judgment call and not logging it is to make a judgment call and log it (and possibly generalize it later into a house rule). It's up to you whether you do that or not, but I'm responding to the claim that everybody logs everything. I don't think they do.

I missed the part where that assertion was made. Was it far up the thread?

Besides, there's no point (in my mind anyway) of logging every situational modifier for everything the PC's do, because when is the next time a player is likely going to attempt the EXACT same task or action under the EXACT same conditions? Generally, I hope the answer to that is "Seldom if ever". Now, if all of the players are attempting the same task, it should certainly be the same difficulty for everybody (barring some remarkably short yet impactful modifier).

Might you keep a log of what difficulty you set for general tasks such as climbing a sheer surface? I suppose so. In general, I don't need that either, but I can see how some might like to.

[MaxWilson]

There's no need to log rulings, since they deal with unique events. Grappling with ropes needs to be logged or remembered somehow because it's a house rule that might come into play again and again. (And because it's dead certain that at least one player will ask you if their character can do it too. You'll need to be able to explain either how they can do it or why they can't.) The cliff ruling, OTOH, wasn't a general rule but a ruling about the difficulty of standing on that cliff, in that weather. A different cliff, or even the same cliff on a different day might be easier or harder so consistency isn't necessary. If/when it happens, you just make whatever ruling seems best at that time.

Some people like consistency, though. Some people may note that it wasn't a particularly blustery day, draw conclusions about how hard it is to keep your balance on icy slopes, and then in the future try to engage enemies on icy slopes in hopes of getting them to fall to their deaths. If you have a consistent philosophy motivating your DM decisions then this probably won't be a problem because you'll wind up with a consistent ruling stemming from your philosophy--in this case maybe you don't need to log anything, you're just trusting yourself and your own internal consistency. But I wouldn't say that makes consistency "not necessary," it just means that you are trusting yourself to do things right.


I missed the part where that assertion was made. Was it far up the thread?

Posts #49 and #51.


Besides, there's no point (in my mind anyway) of logging every situational modifier for everything the PC's do, because when is the next time a player is likely going to attempt the EXACT same task or action under the EXACT same conditions? Generally, I hope the answer to that is "Seldom if ever". Now, if all of the players are attempting the same task, it should certainly be the same difficulty for everybody (barring some remarkably short yet impactful modifier).

Might you keep a log of what difficulty you set for general tasks such as climbing a sheer surface? I suppose so. In general, I don't need that either, but I can see how some might like to.

I don't necessarily think you need to either, I was just challenging #51's challenge to #49 that everybody already logs everything and therefore having rules doesn't add consistency. They don't, ergo rules would add consistency--which is not necessarily the same as adding value. It is quite possible to have consistent but clunky and un-fun rules.

[Gurka]

I don't necessarily think you need to either, I was just challenging #51's challenge to #49 that everybody already logs everything and therefore having rules doesn't add consistency. They don't, ergo rules would add consistency--which is not necessarily the same as adding value. It is quite possible to have consistent but clunky and un-fun rules.

Mine was 51. Read it through again. I specifically stated that I DO NOT assume everybody writes everything down. In my personal experience it's very common, but I stated that (bold for emphasis here) MY EXPERIENCE IS NOT A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE TO APPLY TO PLAYERS OR GMS AT LARGE.

At no point did I state or intentionally imply that keeping notes alleviates the need for rules in general. Only that keeping personal errata on hand for the most common or irksome bits of rule ambiguity offers a comparable degree of consistency to more lengthy and complex rule systems.

[MaxWilson]

Mine was 51. Read it through again. I specifically stated that I DO NOT assume everybody writes everything down. In my personal experience it's very common, but I stated that (bold for emphasis here) MY EXPERIENCE IS NOT A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE TO APPLY TO PLAYERS OR GMS AT LARGE.

At no point did I state or intentionally imply that keeping notes alleviates the need for rules in general. Only that keeping personal errata on hand for the most common or irksome bits of rule ambiguity offers a comparable degree of consistency to more lengthy and complex rule systems.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, nor do I want to argue tediously over what is ultimately a tangent, but here's what I'm talking about.

Post #51, The assertion that most DMs don't log their house-rules though, I find dubious. It's possible that you're right, but my personal experience is exactly the opposite. Not only do I note down any rule tweaks that I use, but so have almost all of the DMs I've played multi-session games with.

I then pointed out that house rules aren't rulings, and anecdotal evidence that DMs log their house rules means nothing because definitionally, house rules get logged. In post #58 you admit that, Might you keep a log of what difficulty you set for general tasks such as climbing a sheer surface? I suppose so. In general, I don't need that either, but I can see how some might like to. which is sufficient to support Kurald Galain's original statement in #49 that Not at all. Numerous players value consistency. Ambiguous rules will cause inconsistency (1) in lengthy campaigns, unless the DM writes down all his prior rulings (which most DMs don't), and (2) in any group that shares or rotates DMs, and (3) in public "living" campaigns.

You've already admitted that you fall into the same "most DMs" category that Kurald Galain was talking about.

QED.

[Gurka]

You've already admitted that you fall into the same "most DMs" category that Kurald Galain was talking about.

QED.

The point of the earlier back and forth was that neither I nor (I suspect) anybody else posting here can say definitively what the average DM out there does, if enough of them fit into any given mold for there to BE an average at all. If there is such a thing, I certainly hope that failing to keep track of every single ruling you've made isn't the only qualifier, because if so, we all get painted by that brush I'm afraid.

What I've been saying (or trying to) is for things that require common rulings or for particularly prickly questions, I keep those notes in with my houserules (and certainly suggest others do as well). I'm sure not everybody does, maybe even not even a lot, but maybe more do than you'd think. What I'm sure of though, is that throwing around "Gotcha" statements is a good debate tool, but not a very good way of actually forwarding a discussion.

If we boil it down to the simplest terms, then I've got two scenarios to pose:

1) Each task has a set difficulty which is immutable. Unaffected by any conditions, environmental, circumstantial, or otherwise.

2) The difficulty of each task is affected by the conditions under which the task is attempted.

If 1, then there's no point in tracking anything, because there's no ruling to be made.

If 2, then consider that within the potentially infinite combination of conditions, the chances of encountering any but the most common more than once is very small. Thus there is no reason to log every single one of them. Once encountered several times however, it becomes worth establishing a convention to base further judgments on.

does that make sense?

[silveralen]

I'm the only one who notes down stuff when I have to make a ruling, even if in chicken scratch shorthand useless to anyone else? Even as a player I note stuff down when the DM makes a ruling/house rule/improvised rule etc.

Not always to use again, but just to help judge it in the future. That way I maintain a bit of consistency with DCs and relative power, and don't arbitrarily limit something I let a player previously do (that I may not even remember). I also take notes about encounter difficulty and player enjoyment.

[Vogonjeltz]

#3 I recognize that Wizards' design philosophy is counter to my own. They seem to have made a conscious choice to make 5e the way that it is. Its not entirely just some accident. As such, is it a good design philosophy? Does it make the game better to be this way, or did they make a mistake?

I think it makes it better. The more hard and fast rules that come into place, the greater propensity there is for those rules to conflict in unintended ways. By keeping the rules of the game closer to guidelines (prime examples: Contests and Improvising an Action) the DM can make on the spot decisions that don't require any book at all. This improves flow and allows a quick rationalization of any decision making and at the same time reduces conflict between the DM and the players.

I think I have a similar mindset to Bubzors on this topic.


The complaint isn't "DMs have too much power", but rather "the rules contain numerous common holes and ambiguities" (which may slow down DMs depending on their style, and may cause issues with Living campaigns and/or groups with multiple DMs).

I'm not entirely sure that the complaint there are numerous common holes and ambiguities holds merit, especially in light of the fact that the DMG hasn't even been released yet. Side question: What common holes/ambiguities are you thinking of? I know there's questions about objects, but that's actually covered in the PHB on 185.

I also don't think any missing feature necessarily slows pacing at all. Contests for example are just an on the spot decision based on the context. This would probably take no more than 10-15 seconds, if that.

I can see the possible complaint regarding the living campaign, in that two DMs might make different calls on the same improvised action, for example. I guess it just doesn't bother me as I've never played in the living campaign. (Like, why care about a hypothetical problem if it's never, ever, going to surface in practice?)

[rollingForInit]

There are some cases where I think RAW should've been clearer, but in general I don't see the problem. If you switch to another group, you'll now have to learn and adapt to their interpretation of the rules, instead of learning the houserules that would've sprung up from a too strict RAW that people do not like.

[Gwendol]

I support the effort going into 5e in moving from RAW to RAI (more or less). It rewards creativity from DM and players.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not entirely sure that the complaint there are numerous common holes and ambiguities holds merit, especially in light of the fact that the DMG hasn't even been released yet.
Opinions may change if more books are released, depending on what's actually in them.


Side question: What common holes/ambiguities are you thinking of?
For example, it would really help to have a list of common tasks for each skill, with the DC listed, something like "climb a tree (DC 5); rough wall (10), smooth wall (20), ice wall (25)". Even 2E had sample numbers for that.

[Safety Sword]

Opinions may change if more books are released, depending on what's actually in them.


For example, it would really help to have a list of common tasks for each skill, with the DC listed, something like "climb a tree (DC 5); rough wall (10), smooth wall (20), ice wall (25)". Even 2E had sample numbers for that.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assign a DC from the table in the PHB to the scenarios you mentioned.

Climbing is a bit more intuitive than some skills I think though. Social skills are much more difficult to define the DC.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assign a DC from the table in the PHB to the scenarios you mentioned.

No, but I'll bet that if you ask ten different DMs, you'll get at least five different answers.

[archaeo]

Ok, first and foremost: is there any good list of the things people feel are ambiguous? I can only think of maybe a dozen places in the rules where things are so murky that you'll see wildly different interpretations.

Second, which of these ambiguities are purposeful, and which are mistakes? I think we can all agree, for example, that the contagion wording is an outright mistake, given the stated intentions of the designers; another example that leaps to mind is how unclear it is whether Wild Shape allows going from one form to another. Meanwhile, we've also had many comments outright telling players that the stealth rules were written to give the DM wide latitude in adjudicating results.

Finally, which of these ambiguities are going to simply be dealt with in the DMG? The use of ability checks, in particular, seems very likely to be covered in the DMG with far greater granularity than the cursory treatment given in the PHB.


As a player, I'm confused as to what exactly the rules are. I went to a gaming convention last weekend and played in some games. The spread of rules across the 6 tables I played at was ... chaotic. I did not enjoy it. Instead of focusing on the scenario and immersing myself in it, I felt as though I was having to figure out each individual DM and their rules.

One also has to give some room for learning the system, right? I mean, 5e has only been out for a few months.


Question: has organized play (like living forgotten realms, or whatever they're calling it now) started for 5E? Because these ambiguities in the rules will surely affect the organized play platform.

In my reading of HotDQ, a lot of the places where things might be ambiguous are directly discussed in the rules, giving a lot of suggestions and advice on how to handle different approaches. It's also not like organized play is competitive, and given the relative openness of the adventure path, differences in rules are pretty minor compared to the differences in approach within the adventure.


Thats a poor design choice.

This is an exhausting POV; leaving aspects of the system open to interpretation isn't ipso facto poor design. It may not be the way you like it, but as a design paradigm, it's totally reasonable.


It's more that 5e doesn't seem to have decided what sort of game it is in some ways, and the ambiguities are downright irritating...The issue is one of clarity. I'm not averse to making judgement calls, but the context in which they are made needs to be clear. The unified difficulty scale which the GM uses to rate tasks is an excellent addition. Vague wording where the designers aren't even clear on what they're saying? Less so.

It's also worth pointing out that a small core team directed a somewhat larger group of freelancers in writing huge, complicated sets of rules with tons of interlocking and interdependent parts. I think expecting absolute clarity is asking a lot, and Mearls & Co. have been totally open about the fact that they'll be doing surveys after the books are out to gauge what parts of the system need tightened up and changed.

Frankly, a lot of people here would do well to remember that we're first-adopters with a new piece of "technology." We live in an era where operating systems, video game consoles, cell phones, software, and many other consumer products arrive on the scene only partially baked with the expectation of later perfection. Given the history of D&D, which is positively overflowing with incremental improvements in every single edition, having a little patience with 5e as it gets started seems like a reasonable thing to do.

[Safety Sword]

No, but I'll bet that if you ask ten different DMs, you'll get at least five different answers.

Yeah, but that's OK too :)

You only have to be consistent within the context of an individual game.

Close enough really should be good enough.

[Fwiffo86]

I think the clarification of power being in the DMs hands instead of the players hands is a good one. It sounds bad when said out loud, but 3x and PF's rules (can't comment on 4) give the DM next to no options.

As a DM, I have always had certain things that go along the games I run. Such as magic being inherently chaotic but being forced into reliable and repeatable effects. This gives the RP possibility that Fireball A and Fireball B spell in a spell book are not written the same (explains the need to "can I learn this spell" rule from years ago), or necessarily behave the same way. I would never have Van'elle the Wintermage throw a fireball, a giant frost/snowball.... different story. Beginning with 3, that was taken away from me. That however is just a nitpicky thing, but it illustrates how in a small way, I lost RP potential because codified rules suggested otherwise.

When more than is necessary to operate the game is codified, I personally find it absorbing game time when people do unusual things as rules are cross-referenced, discussed, argued, etc. Instead of just going... Sure, the halfling can ride the dog, he's the right size. Course, the dog may have a problem with it if its not trained for that. One second decision vs. 30 minutes spent pouring over books looking for the rule.

Nothing is lost by putting command decision back in the hands of DMs. If you have a DM who is making poor decisions, that isn't the rules fault. It's yours for choosing to play under them. Which can easily be corrected in most cases.

Too many rules slow down and clutter a game. I would even suspect too many rules allow for greater exploits, as in attempts to rule everything, interactions get overlooked, and some observant player somewhere goes... "hey... what if...?"

Just my opinion. But I think 5e's approach to basic rules is vastly superior to anything 3x or PF had to offer.

[cobaltstarfire]

No, but I'll bet that if you ask ten different DMs, you'll get at least five different answers.


And the same is true of any other edition of D&D, that isn't really unique to 5e by a long shot.

[Kurald Galain]

You only have to be consistent within the context of an individual game.
That depends. If you have a group that swaps DMs a lot, or if you want to participate within public/living campaigns, then many people will expect consistency between them. Indeed, an explicitly stated goal of both LFR and PF is precisely consistency between tables.


And the same is true of any other edition of D&D, that isn't really unique to 5e by a long shot.
That is clearly not the case. 2E, 3E and PF all have explicit lists of common DCs, therefore they can be expected to be consistent. 5E does not.

[Fwiffo86]

That is clearly not the case. 2E, 3E and PF all have explicit lists of common DCs, therefore they can be expected to be consistent. 5E does not.

The table of DCs provided in the PHB does not count as clearly defined DCs?

[cobaltstarfire]

3.5 has a list of examples to give you a feel for what sorts of challenging warrant whatever. One little list is not going to make for consistent calls across different tables.

It's also pretty clear that they didn't put much thought into skills for 5e, there's an issue, lack of some silly list to hold a gm's hand isn't it.

[Fwiffo86]

Why does it matter? I certainly don't care about what is happening at any table other than the one I'm playing at. And knowing 5e puts the power in the hands of the DM, I easily can draw the conclusion that their decisions, may be different than mine. I walk in with this knowledge. It wouldn't be a surprise to me.

[Kurald Galain]

It's also pretty clear that they didn't put much thought into skills for 5e, there's an issue
Yes, that is really the underlying problem. They spent a lot of time designing how combat should work, and non-combat is basically an afterthought.


Why does it matter? I certainly don't care about what is happening at any table other than the one I'm playing at. And knowing 5e puts the power in the hands of the DM, I easily can draw the conclusion that their decisions, may be different than mine. I walk in with this knowledge. It wouldn't be a surprise to me.
Because, shockingly, some people have different tastes than you do? :smallamused:

[silveralen]

Because, shockingly, some people have different tastes than you do? :smallamused:

Here is a little mind bender: the more open rules allow for a greater degree of variation within said rules, thus allowing for people to who have different tastes to use a single system without overhauling it.

Your problem is mainly that... People at other tables might run int differently than people at your table, correct?

Maybe I'm missing the joke, but your comment seems like it should be directed at yourself.

[McBars]

3.5 has a list of examples to give you a feel for what sorts of challenging warrant whatever. One little list is not going to make for consistent calls across different tables.

It's also pretty clear that they didn't put much thought into skills for 5e, there's an issue, lack of some silly list to hold a gm's hand isn't it.

I don't think that that's pretty clear at all. It seems to me in fact that plenty of thought was given to ability checks. That they managed to describe the system governing ability checks in six focused pages rather than the 27 it took to characterize skills in third edition supports rather than detracts from that viewpoint.

People seem inflamed and outraged that there's not a lengthy chunk of text to tell them what to do in every circumstance. That sentiment baffles me.

[Kurald Galain]

Here is a little mind bender: the more open rules allow for a greater degree of variation within said rules, thus allowing for people to who have different tastes to use a single system without overhauling it.
Actually, if that were true, then everybody would be playing rules-less freeform.


Your problem is mainly that... People at other tables might run int differently than people at your table, correct?
Nope. The problem we're talking about is that, and I quote, ambiguous rules will cause inconsistency (1) in lengthy campaigns, unless the DM writes down all his prior rulings (which most DMs don't), and (2) in any group that shares or rotates DMs, and (3) in public "living" campaigns.


Maybe I'm missing the joke, but your comment seems like it should be directed at yourself.
It's aimed at people who repond "but I don't mind inconsistency so I don't understand why anyone else would mind inconsistency". They're basically saying "I like strawberry ice cream best, so I don't understand why other people prefer chocolate ice cream".

[Shadow]

It's aimed at people who repond "but I don't mind inconsistency so I don't understand why anyone else would mind inconsistency". They're basically saying "I like strawberry ice cream best, so I don't understand why other people prefer chocolate ice cream".

What the people who like chocolate ice cream won't admit is that they already have three entire aisles in the frozen section dedicated to their prefered taste. And another two aisles in the shop next door.
That's 3.x and PF.

The people that prefer strawberry had a dusty little corner in the back room which hadn't been restocked in decades.
That's 2e.

Now we both have something that hasn't passed its "best if eaten by" date.
Until recently we strawberry lovers were forced to eat chocolate because no one was serving strawberry. Now that stawberry is out again, people are still serving chocolate.
You eat your ice cream, and we'll eat ours.
If you like the rules, go play 3.pf. It's not like it's hard to find a game or anything. It was next to impossible to find a 2e game, but now we have a game that plays similarly and you guys want to take that away fom us now simply because you need 32,763 different varieties and flavors and variations of chocolate, when all we want is a bowl of strawberry that isn't moldy.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Actually, if that were true, then everybody would be playing rules-less freeform.
Only if the #1 priority was variation. But tabletop is a mix of goals, moderation in all things.

[McBars]

What the people who like chocolate ice cream won't admit is that they already have three entire aisles in the frozen section dedicated to their prefered taste. And another two aisles in the shop next door.
That's 3.x and PF.

The people that prefer strawberry had a dusty little corner in the back room which hadn't been restocked in decades.
That's 2e.

Now we both have something that hasn't passed its "best if eaten by" date.
Until recently we strawberry lovers were forced to eat chocolate because no one was serving strawberry. Now that stawberry is out again, people are still serving chocolate.
You eat your ice cream, and we'll eat ours.
If you like the rules, go play 3.pf. It's not like it's hard to find a game or anything. It was next to impossible to find a 2e game, but now we have a game that plays similarly and you guys want to take that away fom us now simply because you need 32,763 different varieties and flavors and variations of chocolate, when all we want is a bowl of strawberry that isn't moldy.

Oh man strawberry ice cream rocks.

Is it weird that while I like 5e more than 3e, I much prefer either of them to 2e?

[silveralen]

Nope. The problem we're talking about is that, and I quote, ambiguous rules will cause inconsistency (1) in lengthy campaigns, unless the DM writes down all his prior rulings (which most DMs don't), and (2) in any group that shares or rotates DMs, and (3) in public "living" campaigns.

It's aimed at people who repond "but I don't mind inconsistency so I don't understand why anyone else would mind inconsistency". They're basically saying "I like strawberry ice cream best, so I don't understand why other people prefer chocolate ice cream".

I'm of the opinion the DM should be taking notes anyways. Having been in a rotating campaign, people usually remember how something got ruled once. If something changes, we make note.

Public campaigns aren't something I worry overly much about, but if we were to accept that the best choice for them you is extremely codified rules with no ambiguity and a constantly updated errata, 4e dnd would be the premier public game system. The fact it never really beat PF indicates people don't have quite as big an issue.

I'm more curious why you think such inconsistencies can realistically be removed. I've only seen one system come closer to managing it, and there were still tons of discussions about potential loopholes and vague phrases.

[Kurald Galain]

What the people who like chocolate ice cream won't admit is that they already have three entire aisles in the frozen section dedicated to their prefered taste.

Oh, they will totally admit that. As in, those players will not migrate to 5E.

The interesting question is whether 5E will be able to become the most popular RPG (because sources indicate that 4E never managed that). I haven't seen any solid sources on this; at any rate it's too early to tell.


I'm more curious why you think such inconsistencies can realistically be removed. I've only seen one system come closer to managing it, and there were still tons of discussions about potential loopholes and vague phrases.

It's a sliding scale, of course.

One of the common complaints against 4E is that its disassociated mechanics. Fans of 4E tend to counterpoint "but 3E also has those". Yes, indeed it does, but the point is that 4E has quite a lot more.

So the same here: a complaint against 5E is that it has ambiguous or absent rules where the DM has to make a judgment call. If you want to counterpoint that "3E also has those", then the answer is the same: yes it does, but 5E has quite a lot more.

And many players don't mind disassociated mechanics, or don't mind ambiguous rules, of course. It's just that the players that do mind will probably stick to 3E/PF again.

[Shadow]

Oh man strawberry ice cream rocks.

I know! But I don't want someone dumping chocolate sauce all over it when those people have five aisles of choices between two stores already.
Now that I have strawberry again, leave my strawberry alone!
:smallwink:

[Speaker]

The ONLY reason that people are having issues with the so-called "ambiguities" is because they're so used to looking for loopholes and exploits from 3.x & 4e.
If those players would forget everything that they knew about previous editions and focus on what was intended and the spirit of the game, then these so-called "ambiguities" wouldn't even be noticed.
Drop the rules lawyer midset from the past two editions and the game plays extremely well. Those so-called "ambiguities" become boons rather than points of contention that the DM and players rule and consider with common sense based on individual situations rather than loooking up page 247 of rulebook number 14.

That's just not true since I only played 1 session of 4e and have never played 3.x at all and I dislike the direction 5th is taking with it's ambiguous rules. It's pretty annoying when there's a disconnect between a player and the DM on how the world works and this can cause problems in play from ruining a character concept to straight up making someone's character build not as effective as they had planned.

[cobaltstarfire]

I don't think that that's pretty clear at all. It seems to me in fact that plenty of thought was given to ability checks. That they managed to describe the system governing ability checks in six focused pages rather than the 27 it took to characterize skills in third edition supports rather than detracts from that viewpoint.


That isn't what I'm talking about when I say they didn't put much thought into skills.

I'm mainly talking about DC's, I think DC's as established in the rules don't work very well across all levels. Doesn't matter much to me cause I only use that table as a rough estimate, but for folks who want to go strict RAW I think there are several problems.

[Shadow]

That isn't what I'm talking about when I say they didn't put much thought into skills.

I'm mainly talking about DC's, I think DC's as established in the rules don't work very well across all levels. Doesn't matter much to me cause I only use that table as a rough estimate, but for folks who want to go strict RAW I think there are several problems.

They work perfectly fine across all levels now.
It was the goofy scaling-by-level system that never worked and was practically impossible to guage at any given level on the fly.
Now it's easy to guage at any level what the difficulty should be, because the numbers never change. Instead, when you get better at something, now you actually do get better at it.

There's no more "this is auto-success if you're level 18, trained, and have a bunch of buffs, and utterly impossible otherwise," instead, now a difficult task is always difficult, but you have enough knowledge and experience that it's moderate for you.
The skills change is one of the BEST parts of bounded accuracy.

[Z3ro]

Doesn't matter much to me cause I only use that table as a rough estimate, but for folks who want to go strict RAW I think there are several problems.

I'm unclear what you mean here. The RAW for skill checks are crystal clear as far as the numbers go. There is no layout for what an "easy" or "hard" challenge is, for example, but I don't see how that affects RAW.

[cobaltstarfire]

Easy/Medium/Hard relative to what? Is an "easy" check easy for a trained individual, or easy for anyone? There's no clarification for that. I couldn't say for sure though since like I said I don't think I'm very capable of separating RAW from RAI.

I imagine the DC's are supposed to be easy for trained individuals though, a DC 10 is something an average person would fail almost as often as they'd succeed which isn't "easy" at all. (although I am pretty tempted if I DM again to replace skill checks with a scale more like what Fudge does, it feels a little more natural to me).

[Shadow]

Easy/Medium/Hard relative to what? Is an "easy" check easy for a trained individual, or easy for anyone? There's no clarification for that. I couldn't say for sure though since like I said I don't think I'm very capable of separating RAW from RAI.

I imagine the DC's are supposed to be easy for trained individuals though, a DC 10 is something an average person would fail almost as often as they'd succeed which isn't "easy" at all. (although I am pretty tempted if I DM again to replace skill checks with a scale more like what Fudge does, it feels a little more natural to me).


It's not relative to anything, maybe that's why you're having a hard time with it. Making it relative to anything makes it scale as that relation changes, and this system doesn't scale.
Perhaps it would help you to consider it relative to an average layman with a bit of know-how. Not an untrained idiot, not a master of his craft.
An average Joe with a little know-how.
Let's say +1 ability mod and +2 proficiency, for +3. That's the scale relation for your purposes.

Doing something very easy (DC 5) only fails 5% of the time. Perfect.
Something easy (DC 10) only fails 30% of the time.
Something moderate (DC 15) fails 55% of the time. Almost perfect.
Something hard (DC 20) fails 80% of the time. Good, it should be difficult.
Something very hard (DC 25) only even has a chance of success if you have outside help or more experience.
Nearly impossible is exactly that, unless you become a master of your craft. The average Joe simply cannot pull it off. Even with a little know-how and some help, it's beyond him.

As he gets better at something (increased stats, more proficiency), what were once extremely difficult or impossible tasks become less so, and within reach.
And when he does become a master of his craft, even with a +5 mod and full +6 proficiency he only succeeds at nearly impossible tasks 10% of the time under normal circumstances. That's why it's *nearly* impossible.... because even a master only succeeds 10% of the time.

How hard would it be for the average guy with only a tiny little bit of know-how? An ametuer. Not an idiot, and not a professional.
The DC scale works great. It encompasses everything from the person with the tiniest bit of knowledge to the master of his craft, and it does so without ever changing the DCs or scaling in any way.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think my problem is actually just that I don't see something "easy" as something that an average someone with little to no training should be failing to do even just 30% of the time.

[Shadow]

I think my problem is actually just that I don't see something "easy" as something that an average someone with little to no training should be failing to do even just 30% of the time.

Making a free throw is Easy. Look up the stats on professional basketball players and their free throw percentages.
Easy doesn't mean almost impossible to fail. That's reserved for Very Easy.
Easy means that you have a better chance of success than of failure, which holds true under the system.

[mephnick]

Most people would consider hammering a nail into a board easy, but I have seen even coordinated people fail spectacularly at this. Professionals also screw this up from time to time, but not enough that I would make them roll for it.

[Forum Explorer]

I think my problem is actually just that I don't see something "easy" as something that an average someone with little to no training should be failing to do even just 30% of the time.

Driving recklessly? I don't know what the exact statistics are for number of accidents but I think they fall between 5% and 30% (particularly when you realize that failure doesn't necessarily mean crash, but could mean caught)


Anyways the impression I've really been getting from 3.5 people (not from 4e people as much, but somewhat) is that they view their DM as some sort of untrustworthy person who will either screw them over on purpose or by accident without the protection of a set list of examples.

[Kurald Galain]

Most people would consider hammering a nail into a board easy, but I have seen even coordinated people fail spectacularly at this.

It doesn't fit my conception of Heroic Fantasy to play a character that can fail at hammering a nail into a board...

[MaxWilson]

Doing something very easy (DC 5) only fails 5% of the time. Perfect.
Something easy (DC 10) only fails 30% of the time.
Something moderate (DC 15) fails 55% of the time. Almost perfect.
Something hard (DC 20) fails 80% of the time. Good, it should be difficult.
Something very hard (DC 25) only even has a chance of success if you have outside help or more experience.

Let's look at this from another angle. Novice, skilled, and expert characters climbing cliffs. The novice is a Wizard with no skill at cliff-climbing (proficiency bonus +0) and average DX (DX 10, +0). The skilled character is a 6th level Rogue with 18 DX and proficiency in Acrobatics which we'll let him use for climbing, so +7. The expert character is a 20th level Bard with DX 20 and Expertise in Acrobatics, so he gets a +17. He's the best you can possibly be at climbing.

The easy cliff (DC 5 - PHB calls this "very easy") is pretty easy. It's a scary climb, especially if there's a 10d6 drop if you fall, but it's not a particularly tricky climb. Loose gravel and 70-degree slope. A Novice makes it 75% of the time, and skilled/experts make it automatically.

The tricky cliff (DC 10 - PHB calls this "easy") is dangerous even for veterans. Instead of loose gravel it is slick wet rocks, and there are areas where the slope is close to vertical. A novice is almost as likely to die (45%) as to make it (55%), and even a skilled climber could make a mistake and fall to his death (10%). The world-class expert still handles the climb with aplomb (auto success).

The difficult cliff (DC 15 - PHB calls this "moderate") is a deadly challenge: a sheer vertical climb 100 feet straight up on wet rocks. The smallest slip will send you tumbling down. It would be suicidal for a novice to try this (30% chance of success), and even an expert had best write a will because with only a 65% chance of success, this is something he'll succeed at only once or twice in his life. (It is kind of weird that two novices are just about as likely to succeed at this as an expert--at least one of them will probably make it to the top--but there's no way around that in the d20 system.) Meanwhile, the world-class expert still auto-succeeds due to Expertise. He really is world-class.

The insane cliff (DC 20 - PHB calls this "hard") is practically impossible for normal humans: scaling 500' up the outside of a 100'-diameter obsidian tower at night in a storm. A novice will succeed only through pure blind luck (5%). A skilled character will probably fail (60%) but might succeed (40%). The world-class guy is genuinely challenged and has a 10% chance of failing too. At this point there is a small but non-zero chance, 1 in 200, that the novice will succeed while the world-class guy fails and falls.

The impossible cliff (DC 25 - PHB calls this "very hard") is so difficult it's not even worth talking about: a 1000' climb up a reverse-angle slope in a howling gale. Novice somehow succeeds at this 5% of the time anyway. Skilled guy doesn't do much better: he succeeds 15% of the time. World-class expert will remember this day for a long time: he has a 65% chance of success, while means that it is as difficult for him as the difficult cliff is for a regular skilled climber. If he succeeds, it will be a once-or-twice-in-a-lifetime achievement, and he's unlikely to get a third. There is a 1 in 60 chance that the novice will succeed here while the world-class expert fails and dies.

[Vogonjeltz]

For example, it would really help to have a list of common tasks for each skill, with the DC listed, something like "climb a tree (DC 5); rough wall (10), smooth wall (20), ice wall (25)". Even 2E had sample numbers for that.

Well, climbing might not be the best example, as there's no DC at all except at the DMs option (page 182).

Ability checks only happen if the DM determines that there's a chance of failure; so if you don't think there's a chance of the character in question failing to climb a tree, then there's no DC at all. Climbing is one of those things that's implicitly treated as not going to fail unless there are exacerbating circumstances that would make it difficult (High winds, no handholds, etc...)

Then it's up to the DM to decide what the DC is. And that DC might be totally different for Alice the Champion than it is for Bob the Wizard; or it might be the same; or vary by DM. I'd also look into the variant of skills with different abilities, especially when it comes to endurance things like climbing the cliffs of insanity.


I think we can all agree, for example, that the contagion wording is an outright mistake, given the stated intentions of the designers

I just read the spell...what's wrong with it?

Is there anything else, or was the DCs being in the hands of the DM and a possible need for errata on a spell it?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

It doesn't fit my conception of Heroic Fantasy to play a character that can fail at hammering a nail into a board...
If that story is too mundane for you to tell, then don't tell it. Call it a success and move on. It's just one example of a simple task that isn't guaranteed to succeed in everyday life. It's used because it intuitive and most people have experience with it.

[Sitri]

I like that many rules have been condensed into more quick and simple solutions. However, I don't like the extreme variance and ambiguity the OP refers to.

My wife and I have been playing a game with one DM and we are now only on level 3. If I were to tally up all the time we spent just going back and forth on email about future character options and how I should plan on us leveling, I think we would be at about 5-6 hours now of book referencing and discussion back and forth RAW and RAI.

I would love to just have clear, specific lines of texts that answers these concerns. I don't want to make poor planning choices, but I also don't want to keep hassling my DM every game and feel like I am haggling for options.

I do like to create a list of house/character creation rules when I DM a game. But I don't think any DM should have to write a house book just to have players be prepared.

[Shadow]

Let's look at this from another angle.

So you're houseruling that a 20 is an automatic success then?

[mephnick]

If I were to tally up all the time we spent just going back and forth on email about future character options and how I should plan on us leveling, I think we would be at about 5-6 hours now of book referencing and discussion back and forth RAW and RAI.

I'm really confused at what could cause this much discussion when creating a character. Could you expand on this?

[McBars]

I like that many rules have been condensed into more quick and simple solutions. However, I don't like the extreme variance and ambiguity the OP refers to.

My wife and I have been playing a game with one DM and we are now only on level 3. If I were to tally up all the time we spent just going back and forth on email about future character options and how I should plan on us leveling, I think we would be at about 5-6 hours now of book referencing and discussion back and forth RAW and RAI.

I would love to just have clear, specific lines of texts that answers these concerns. I don't want to make poor planning choices, but I also don't want to keep hassling my DM every game and feel like I am haggling for options.

I do like to create a list of house/character creation rules when I DM a game. But I don't think any DM should have to write a house book just to have players be prepared.

What in the hell do you guys discuss in those emails? There really aren't any scary trap choices, mayyyybe BM Ranger but aside from that everything is pretty solid in terms of classes and subclasses.

[pwykersotz]

Since this has morphed into talking about skills, I've grown to like the guidelines. I don't recall offhand if all these are RAW or if I picked them up elsewhere, but they seem to work well.

1. Certain checks require training or are auto-failed. Examples include picking particularly special locks or extremely specific and difficult acrobatics ("I cartwheel across the three inch beam!")
2. If there's no threat and no chance of failure, no roll. Auto-fail still applies here. So the untrained novice can never pick that lock until he improves himself, but the master, despite complications, gets it open.
3. If there are significant distractions or consequences, roll. Failure doesn't indicate lack of personal skill, merely that the mitigating factors rose to a point that could not be ignored. Perhaps that rushing river beneath the beam really shook you, or the wind hit you just wrong.

Just my 2cp

[Forum Explorer]

I like that many rules have been condensed into more quick and simple solutions. However, I don't like the extreme variance and ambiguity the OP refers to.

My wife and I have been playing a game with one DM and we are now only on level 3. If I were to tally up all the time we spent just going back and forth on email about future character options and how I should plan on us leveling, I think we would be at about 5-6 hours now of book referencing and discussion back and forth RAW and RAI.

I would love to just have clear, specific lines of texts that answers these concerns. I don't want to make poor planning choices, but I also don't want to keep hassling my DM every game and feel like I am haggling for options.

I do like to create a list of house/character creation rules when I DM a game. But I don't think any DM should have to write a house book just to have players be prepared.

ditto what others have said. That seems to be an excessive amount of discussion regarding character options. Things are mostly balanced now, and you only need general guidelines for what is allowed (Is multiclassing allowed? Are feats allowed?) and then you shouldn't need to discuss things with your DM at all.

[MaxWilson]

So you're houseruling that a 20 is an automatic success then?

I'm AFB. I thought I recalled that 1 is not an auto-failure but 20 is an automatic success. If I were making houserules it would go the other direction (20 should not be an auto-success), but it's equally possible that I'm simply misremembering. Can you please check? Getting rid of the auto-20 keeps the novice from succeeding at climbs that he really has no business even attempting, which would be nice.

[Kurald Galain]

The tricky cliff (DC 10 - PHB calls this "easy") is dangerous even for veterans. Instead of loose gravel it is slick wet rocks, and there are areas where the slope is close to vertical. A novice is almost as likely to die (45%) as to make it (55%), and even a skilled climber could make a mistake and fall to his death (10%).

Right, so attempting an easy task kills a skilled character 10% of the time. That's a good example of the lack of thought that has been put into this skill system :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm AFB. I thought I recalled that 1 is not an auto-failure but 20 is an automatic success. If I were making houserules it would go the other direction (20 should not be an auto-success), but it's equally possible that I'm simply misremembering. Can you please check? Getting rid of the auto-20 keeps the novice from succeeding at climbs that he really has no business even attempting, which would be nice.

Meet or exceed DC. 20 is just an automatic hit for attacks.

[Shadow]

I'm AFB. I thought I recalled that 1 is not an auto-failure but 20 is an automatic success. If I were making houserules it would go the other direction (20 should not be an auto-success), but it's equally possible that I'm simply misremembering. Can you please check? Getting rid of the auto-20 keeps the novice from succeeding at climbs that he really has no business even attempting, which would be nice.

1/20 auto success/failure only applies to attacks.
Many groups will houserule that it also applies to skills, but that's what it is, a houserule.

[silveralen]

Right, so attempting an easy task kills a skilled character 10% of the time. That's a good example of the lack of thought that has been put into this skill system :smallbiggrin:

Assuming a single failure equates into falling to your death and success equals climbing the entire thing perfectly.... rather than a series of checks where failure may result in a lack of progress, and multiple failures in a row might result in the "fall to your death" scenario.

[Xetheral]

And that was my point.
In those situations it's almost always the case that one party was attempting something that clearly wasn't intended. On a forum this leads to an argument. If it becomes an argument at the table, then it's almost guaranteed that one party was trying to game the system.
If you have any questions about how something should or will be interpreted, ask your DM. If you're the DM, make the call. I don't understand what's so hard about this or why people have a problem with it.

(Emphasis added) The reason is that people don't agree with your underlying assumption that disputes only arise when someone is acting in bad faith. Consider:

You said: "In those situations it's almost always the case that one party was attempting something that clearly wasn't intended." But I disagree. I've seen multiple questions arise on this forum with reasonable, good-faith people on both sides trying to discern unclear intent. In a given dispute you might personally believe that one or the other side is being unreasonable, but that doesn't make it universally true that "almost always" "one party attempting something clearly [not] intended".

You further said: "If it becomes an argument at the table, then it's almost guaranteed that one party was trying to game the system." I've [I]never had a player try to game any system, yet frequently there are productive rules discussions and even arguments before or after (and sometimes during, if it's a knotty problem without good solutions). When all of my experience points contrary to your assertion, I cannot accept your claim that "it's almost guaranteed" someone is acting in bad faith.

[silveralen]

I cannot accept your claim that "it's almost guaranteed" someone is acting in bad faith.

Okay, what examples can you provide that aren't people trying to beat the system?

[MaxWilson]

Right, so attempting an easy task kills a skilled character 10% of the time. That's a good example of the lack of thought that has been put into this skill system :smallbiggrin:

I don't think it's "lack of thought." There is a deliberate design decision to make everything swingy and risky--it's a component of Bounded Accuracy. The designers apparently feel that rolling dice is an important part of having fun, ergo results must have a high degree of variance.

If you don't like this you could always houserule a different resolution mechanism such as 3z8 (0 to 21).

Currently I'm fine with vanilla rules here. You mitigate risk in other ways, like having enough HP to survive the fall.

Silveralen implicitly suggests a more bell-curved resolution mechanism (more skill checks = more bell-curved output) which has the advantage that you don't actually have to explain the new mechanism to your players. 5E combat is exactly like this too.

[Xetheral]

I believe the difficulty we're having in this discussion is the same problem that makes it difficult to include a standard list of DCs that people can agree on: namely, there is no context-independent map between probabilities of success and English terminology like "hard" and "easy".

The difficulty of a task, when casually discussed, implicitly takes into account the prospect and consequences of failure. A 90% chance to succeed on a jump check to clear a chasm containing a certainly-fatal fall is, in my opinion, an insanely hard task. It's only marginally safer than playing Russian roulette. Conversely, a 90% chance to succeed at beating an opponent in a jumping competition is a very easy challenge.

Another example: a 90% chance to succeed at picking a given lock on your first try is a pretty easy lock. But, on a well-planned heist, a 90% chance to succeed at picking the lock on the safe before the next guard patrol arrives makes that pretty easy lock a very challenging encounter, possibly to the point of being an unacceptable risk, depending on the consequences of getting caught and available contingency plans.

A list of unified DCs purely in probability terms (rather than descriptive terms) might indeed help, relying on the DM to decide what sort of challenge is appropriate to the story. BUT, on top of all the previous problems, humans are notoriously bad at viscerally understanding probabilities. Sure, 10% is 1 time in 10, but what that means to a non-repeated event is very hard to understand in your gut. (And, arguably, there isn't a "correct" understanding anyway. Probabilities for one-time events have divergent philosophical interpretations.)

Skill-specific lists of DCs decrease the burden on the DM for trying to intuitively gauge what's appropriate to the action, by accounting for some of the skill-specific consequences of failure. Unfortunately, skill-specific DCs simultaneously increase the burden on the DM by requiring memorizing the lists, having them handy in well-organized notes, or slowing down the game to look them up.

I think the best possible approach would have been a unified table of DCs by expected success probability at various levels, with skill-specific discussion of what contextual factors should go into the DM's determination of a reasonable success probability. And yes, this needs to be in the PHB rather than the DMG... without an understand of how effective their characters are, players aren't able to make informed decisions about how to interact with the game world.

[Xetheral]

Okay, what examples can you provide that aren't people trying to beat the system?

In SW Saga, a new player had two abilities. Ability 1, when used, created effect A, which lasted until the beginning of their next turn. Ability 2 could only be used if effect A was true at the beginning of their turn. The player took both abilities with the reasonable belief that Ability 1 could trigger Ability 2 on the next round (and further believed that the abilities were worded the way they were because such interaction was intended). The DM, also reasonably, disagreed that Ability 1 triggered Ability 2, and further disagreed that the abilities were intended to interact as the player believed. The crux of the problem that prevented simple resolution was that allowing Ability 1 to trigger Ability 2 created a borderline situation that the DM (reasonably) believed might be too powerful for that particular table, but the player had only chosen the abilities due to the apparent interaction, without which the character had a hard time mechanically fitting the concept.

Ultimately, there was an ambiguity that neither player nor DM had realized was ambiguous prior to seeing the character in action, and it detracted from the play experience (despite leading to a fascinating conversation about natural language parsing, mathematical limits, discontinuities, which day midnight occurred on, and the nature of the time). Was it resolvable? Yes, it was, but the existence of the ambiguity was still a problem.

[silveralen]

In SW Saga

To clarify, in this edition of DnD.

[Sitri]

I'm really confused at what could cause this much discussion when creating a character. Could you expand on this?

Here are a few off the top of my head, I know I am missing some.

- If we are using a grid or not, and under both circumstances when I should expect to get cover penalties. I finally gave up on understanding when this would happen and scrapped my warlock for a bard. He doesn't allow feats so no spell sniper to fix this.
- What all rolls Jack of all trades applies to, DM deemed it much more than what I see in RAW. I tried to point out the difference but ultimately didn't push too much because it was in my favor.
- He said rituals don't require costly material components. Same as the last one, I pointed out why I thought this was wrong to make sure nothing changed down the road after spell selection.
- Most recently we have been talking about the bard extra spells and the fact that it says you can get spells from "any list" he took to mean any one list. Then we needed to figure out whether he thought it meant that all my extra spells needed to come from the same list, whether it just needed to be the same list at any level that I got the ability, or it needed to be the same every instance of "two spells from any class" came up (6 two from one list, 10 two from one list, 14 and 18 four from one list.)

I know there is more but this is what I can immediately remember.

[silveralen]

- Most recently we have been talking about the bard extra spells and the fact that it says you can get spells from "any list" he took to mean any one list.

Okay, this isn't a clarity issue. It doesn't say any one, in no way implies it, your DM is reading things that aren't there or simply decided it'd be better balanced as he read it. The only way to "fix" issues like this is to double the book's word count to enjoy massively over specific explanations with no possible room for interpretation.

[Vogonjeltz]

Here are a few off the top of my head, I know I am missing some.

- If we are using a grid or not, and under both circumstances when I should expect to get cover penalties. I finally gave up on understanding when this would happen and scrapped my warlock for a bard. He doesn't allow feats so no spell sniper to fix this.
- What all rolls Jack of all trades applies to, DM deemed it much more than what I see in RAW. I tried to point out the difference but ultimately didn't push too much because it was in my favor.
- He said rituals don't require costly material components. Same as the last one, I pointed out why I thought this was wrong to make sure nothing changed down the road after spell selection.
- Most recently we have been talking about the bard extra spells and the fact that it says you can get spells from "any list" he took to mean any one list. Then we needed to figure out whether he thought it meant that all my extra spells needed to come from the same list, whether it just needed to be the same list at any level that I got the ability, or it needed to be the same every instance of "two spells from any class" came up (6 two from one list, 10 two from one list, 14 and 18 four from one list.)

I know there is more but this is what I can immediately remember.

Sorry, what text made your DM think rituals don't require components? I don't see anything granting an exemption.

Similarly, nothing in the bard text suggests they must be from the same list.

*also curious about the jack of all trades one. It says any ability check, what's confusing about that?

[Shadow]

I don't see a problem with a single thing on that list.
Just because the DM reads something incorrectly doesn't mean that it was in any way ambiguous. It was simply misread. Multiple times regarding multiple things.
Maybe finding a different game is a better choice than spending what you claim was 5 or 6 hours discussing things that never need to be discussed at most tables.

Although I'm not putting it entirely on him either. You needed to know exactly when and how cover was going to be a factor before the gamne even started, and switched classes because you didn't like the answer?
If a player asked me when cover would appply, my answer would have been "when the enemy is behind something which provides cover."

[Xetheral]

To clarify, in this edition of DnD.

The part you originally quoted when you asked for examples dealt with table experience, where my reliance on my experience was explicitly not system-specific: "I've never had a player try to game any system...." I don't have any 5e-specific table examples yet, but I don't believe this in any way weakens my point. Consider...

The OP's original complaint, echoed by Kurald Galain here...


So the same here: a complaint against 5E is that it has ambiguous or absent rules where the DM has to make a judgment call. If you want to counterpoint that "3E also has those", then the answer is the same: yes it does, but 5E has quite a lot more.

...was that 5e contains more ambiguities than other systems. Accordingly, an example from a previous D&D offshoot that shows a dispute that doesn't involve someone trying to game the system effectively still rebuts Shadow's claim that such disputes at the table are "almost guaranteed" to result exclusively from someone trying to game the system.

Admittedly, my specific example is indeed vulnerable to a claim that Saga Edition was just as ambiguous as 5e (which might be true). Maybe if I thought about it some more I could come up with a better example from 3.5 or 4 that I can still remember in sufficient clarity to be instructive? I'm not sure. Even if I can't, the point remains that the ability for responsible players to disagree in previous editions sets the bar extremely high to prove Shadow's claim that 5e disputes almost exclusively arise from people acting in bad faith.

[Shadow]

...was that 5e contains more ambiguities than other systems. Accordingly, an example from a previous D&D offshoot that shows a dispute that doesn't involve someone trying to game the system effectively still rebuts Shadow's claim that such disputes at the table are "almost guaranteed" to result exclusively from someone trying to game the system.

We're not talking about other games, we're talking about this one.
My experience differs greatly from yours. In D&D 5e, in every situation where any so-called ambiguity created an actual argument at the table, it was because someone was trying to do something that was quite clearly obviously not intended, and that player eventually relented because he knew that he was trying to game the system.
Every. Single. Time.

[Xetheral]

We're not talking about other games, we're talking about this one.
My experience differs greatly from yours. In D&D 5e, in every situation where any so-called ambiguity created an actual argument at the table, it was because someone was trying to do something that was quite clearly obviously not intended, and that player eventually relented because he knew that he was trying to game the system.

That's certainly plausible, and I'm sorry that you've had players try to game the system. However, is there any reason to take your personal experience and assume it applies with the same uniformity to the community as a whole?

[MaxWilson]

To clarify, in this edition of DnD.

"How many 5' grid squares across does a 20' radius fireball hit?"

If the answer is "5 squares across", then you have an odd situation where a 40' diameter fireball covers grid squares than a 40' square, even though the 40' square is bigger.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's certainly plausible, and I'm sorry that you've had players try to game the system. However, is there any reason to take your personal experience and assume it applies with the same uniformity to the community as a whole?

People are pretty notorious for trying to game the system for personal advantage. I guess you'd have to present a scenario in 5th where there's no personal advantage to misinterpreting the rule, and yet the person fought to make the point that it worked that way.

That would be a counter example, wouldn't it?

[silveralen]

"How many 5' grid squares across does a 20' radius fireball hit?"

If the answer is "5 squares across", then you have an odd situation where a 40' diameter fireball covers grid squares than a 40' square, even though the 40' square is bigger.

20' radius with 5' squares?

pick the point of impact. Put a piece of string or a piece of paper down so that it touches the point of impact and a point four squares away, then trace a circle. Tada.

I literally don't know how anyone could have trouble with that. Even if you don't want to trace a full circle, measure the distance between 4 squares on a paper and use that as an impromptu ruler to see whther someone is inside the AoE or not. Or buy an actual ruler.

This... I mean... how does this ever cause an issue?


That's certainly plausible, and I'm sorry that you've had players try to game the system. However, is there any reason to take your personal experience and assume it applies with the same uniformity to the community as a whole?

Your inability to provide an in system example is certainly doing wonders for my skepticism.

[Shadow]

This... I mean... how does this ever cause an issue?

Because he's counting "squares across" like we did in 4e instead of making a circle that actually has a radius. He's not making a circle at all. He's making a square.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what he's trying to say.

[MaxWilson]

20' radius with 5' squares?

pick the point of impact. Put a piece of string or a piece of paper down so that it touches the point of impact and a point four squares away, then trace a circle. Tada.

I literally don't know how anyone could have trouble with that. Even if you don't want to trace a full circle, measure the distance between 4 squares on a paper and use that as an impromptu ruler to see whther someone is inside the AoE or not. Or buy an actual ruler.

This... I mean... how does this ever cause an issue?

(I misspoke when I said "5 squares across." Obviously that should have been "9 squares across" because they're 5' squares, not 10'.)

A picture may help. The method you're suggesting would typically lead to an area of effect that looks something like this

XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX

You see, you're picking the center square and counting four squares out from it. You could treat the 4th square out as an inclusive instead of an exclusive boundary (it's ambiguous), in which case the circle would be 7 squares across instead of 9.

In the case of the 40' square though, you don't align on a center square (typically), so you wind up with something like this:

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX


At least, that's how I've seen it done so far in 5E. There's no reason in principle you couldn't apply the same "inclusive boundary" logic to a 40' square and align it on a square's corner instead of middle, thus winding up with an area larger than the circle:

XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX


But, it's ambiguous, and the common way of resolving the ambiguity leads to squares and circles getting rounded in different directions, hence circle winds up with a wider width than the square even though geometrically it is smaller.

[Sitri]

Okay, this isn't a clarity issue. It doesn't say any one, in no way implies it, your DM is reading things that aren't there or simply decided it'd be better balanced as he read it. The only way to "fix" issues like this is to double the book's word count to enjoy massively over specific explanations with no possible room for interpretation.

I can agree with this to a large extent. However some more specifics could help the case.


Sorry, what text made your DM think rituals don't require components? I don't see anything granting an exemption.

Similarly, nothing in the bard text suggests they must be from the same list.

*also curious about the jack of all trades one. It says any ability check, what's confusing about that?

I don't have the book in front of me at the moment. I think that ritual casting says something to the effect of cast them "without cost" which I interpreted to mean spells per day cost, and he called it material component cost.

For the bard spells, he said "list" was singular.

Under Jack of all trades he said to include Saving throws (Similarly he calls an attack a strength check for the purpose of our barbarian's rage.)


I don't see a problem with a single thing on that list.
Just because the DM reads something incorrectly doesn't mean that it was in any way ambiguous. It was simply misread. Multiple times regarding multiple things.
Maybe finding a different game is a better choice than spending what you claim was 5 or 6 hours discussing things that never need to be discussed at most tables.

Although I'm not putting it entirely on him either. You needed to know exactly when and how cover was going to be a factor before the gamne even started, and switched classes because you didn't like the answer?
If a player asked me when cover would appply, my answer would have been "when the enemy is behind something which provides cover."

I recently moved to a smaller town and the options of games during my available time frame is limited.

No we talked about cover for a long time before the game started, and I got so many different answers I had no idea when to expect it (need one corner, two corners, or need all), or if we were even using the "theater of the mind" because that is the default setting; we used that for games 3-6 I think out of about 8. I made a bard after making the Warlock, but before ever playing it. With all my confusion about when I would have cover penalties applied, I thought it safer to just pick a class where it wouldn't matter very often before the game actually began.

Like I think others have said earlier, huge DM empowerment might be great if you have a great DM, but if it is sketchy, some clearly defined rules and not a lot of optional rules and vagueness built into the book would be nice.

[Xetheral]

Your inability to provide an in system example is certainly doing wonders for my skepticism.

Then you're welcome to discount my use of personal experience as a counter-example to Shadow's premise that at the table it's virtually guaranteed that disputes are caused by someone acting in bad faith. That doesn't change my point that people disagree with that premise.

[JoeJ]

"How many 5' grid squares across does a 20' radius fireball hit?"

If the answer is "5 squares across", then you have an odd situation where a 40' diameter fireball covers grid squares than a 40' square, even though the 40' square is bigger.

It's as wide as 8 squares (20 * 2 / 5), and covers a total area equal to 50.265 squares.

The DMG is supposed to include more detailed rules for using grids, so I expect there will be something there about fitting spell AoE. In the meantime, you can use the traditional miniatures wargame practice and measure it. Or print and cut out paper or plastic circles with commonly used radii.

[MaxWilson]

It's as wide as 8 squares (20 * 2 / 5), and covers a total area equal to 50.265 squares.

The DMG is supposed to include more detailed rules for using grids, so I expect there will be something there about fitting spell AoE. In the meantime, you can use the traditional miniatures wargame practice and measure it. Or print and cut out paper or plastic circles with commonly used radii.

Wouldn't a miniatures wargame have discretized coordinates? In D&D they're continuous. It's ambiguous by RAW whether or not you can hit two goblins 40' away from each other with the same fireball. The best solution I have to is allow a 180-degree arc of the circle to be an inclusive boundary and the other 180 degrees are an exclusive boundary. It winds up looking like this:

XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX

It's not pretty, but it's geometrically sound. I rather suspect most DMs wouldn't bother.

(People who suggest measuring it are missing the point: this is about boundary rounding, not an inability to measure where boundaries are.)

[Shadow]

But, it's ambiguous, and the common way of resolving the ambiguity leads to squares and circles getting rounded in different directions, hence circle winds up with a wider width than the square even though geometrically it is smaller.

Well, it isn't smaller from one side to the other, it's the same.
And if it's really that big of a deal to you, just have the origin of any circular AoE be an intersection of squares rather than a square itself. Voila, they're even again.
Essentially making 4 cones of equivalent size to the radius' length.


X X X X | X X X X
X X X X | X X X X
X X X X | X X X X
X X X X | X X X X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
X X X X | X X X X
X X X X | X X X X
X X X X | X X X X
X X X X | X X X X

The blue squares become at teh DM's option depending on how he wants to rule them, included or excluded.

[silveralen]

Wouldn't a miniatures wargame have discretized coordinates? In D&D they're continuous. It's ambiguous by RAW whether or not you can hit two goblins 40' away from each other with the same fireball.

(People who suggest measuring it are missing the point: this is about boundary rounding, not an inability to measure where boundaries are.)

This is why it isn't worth bothering to try and clarify every ambiguity. You can have someone read 20 foot radius and debate whether or not you can hit two enemies 40 ft apart. That's either a failure of our school systems or an absolute failure of common sense so massive no rule system could fix it.

Maybe try a visual aide? Take a rule. Measure to objects out to be a foot away. Draw a circle with radius 6 inches. Try to fit both objects under it. Let us know how it works out.

What are you even talking about? Does the point of impact lie within 20 ft of the character? Yes? It hits them. That's it. Full stop. No other rules needed.

4e has a lot to answer for if it literally has made people incapable of solving "issues" like this.

[JoeJ]

It's ambiguous by RAW whether or not you can hit two goblins 40' away from each other with the same fireball.

That doesn't sound ambiguous to me at all. If they're 40' apart, then the only way a fireball can hit them both is if they stand there long enough for the wizard to get a tape measure and mark the exact center of the line drawn between them, then target that mark. So, in theory, yes. In a fight, no.

As for hot to fit a round spell effect to a square grid, that's not an ambiguity, that's your house rule (At the moment, anyway. There will likely be an official rule in the DMG.). Without knowing what that rule is, there's no way I can give you any other answer.

[MaxWilson]

This is why it isn't worth bothering to try and clarify every ambiguity. You can have someone read 20 foot radius and debate whether or not you can hit two enemies 40 ft apart. That's either a failure of our school systems or an absolute failure of common sense so massive no rule system could fix it.

Maybe try a visual aide? Take a rule. Measure to objects out to be a foot away. Draw a circle with radius 6 inches. Try to fit both objects under it. Let us know how it works out.

What are you even talking about? Does the point of impact lie within 20 ft of the character? Yes? It hits them. That's it. Full stop. No other rules needed.

4e has a lot to answer for if it literally has made people incapable of solving "issues" like this.

I have no idea why 4E is relevant, nor why you're exaggerating the difficulty of making a ruling. Can I make a ruling on this? Sure. You've seen me provide more than one possible resolution in this thread, one of which resembles Shadow's suggestion (require circles to originate at a square's intersection) but in the opposite direction (relax the constraint on squares, don't impose a new one on circles). I had hoped to share an example of an ambiguity with significance which is not based on attempts to powergame; instead you choose to argue that there is no ambiguity because you can think of a way to resolve it at your table.

It's not really worth wasting further words on this particular example, so I'll stop. It's just an example.

[Shadow]

I had hoped to share an example of an ambiguity with significance which is not based on attempts to powergame; instead you choose to argue that there is no ambiguity because you can think of a way to resolve it at your table.

But that's the thing. It isn't ambiguous. Just because you're unhappy with the obvious answer due to it not making enough sense in a physical state in relation to the game world doesn't make that answer any less obvious, nor does it make the rule ambiguous in any way.

Not only that, but you specifically chose an example which will be covered in the DMG. We know it will be because we've seen that ToC. So any part of it that you consider ambiguous in any way will be clarified for you next month.
You're attempting to use grid combat as an example when the PHB is written with TotM style as default.
You chose a poor example.

[MaxWilson]

But that's the thing. It isn't ambiguous. Just because you're unhappy with the obvious answer due to it not making enough sense in a physical state in relation to the game world doesn't make that answer any less obvious, nor does it make the rule ambiguous in any way.

Not only that, but you specifically chose an example which will be covered in the DMG. We know it will be because we've seen that ToC. So any part of it that you consider ambiguous in any way will be clarified for you next month.
You're attempting to use grid combat as an example when the PHB is written with TotM style as default.
You chose a poor example.

I hear your words and they are strong. Those who have read the thread have heard both perspectives; let the reader discern the truth.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm with Shadow on this. It's not ambiguous at all. If you are using some sort of table or whatever, then you just measure it out. If it's theater of the mind, then it's not going to come up anyways.

[Mirakk]

Honestly, I think a little bit of ambiguity is good for the edition. And I say that as a person who loved 3.5 and swore by it up and down. I still like 3.5, but the best way to relate what I'm saying is this:

Some people like 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzles because they're difficult and require thought and planning. Everything must be exact.
Some people like playing Tetris instead, because it's more active and focuses on gameplay than the jigsaw puzzle.


Different strokes for different folks. Do you find it fun having to look up the grappling rules mid-session or rules lawyering what bearing a gale force wind has against a 40lb gnome flying through the air? If you don't, 5.0 just might be for you.

[Vogonjeltz]

How hard is it to pick a point in space and count 20'? If the creature isn't in that space, it isn't getting hit. The grid variant rules state that counting starts from the space next to the point of origin. So pick a square, count 4 squares out from there in any direction (20 ft). If it is in one of those squares, it got hit.

0 ambiguity.

[Kurald Galain]

Honestly, I think a little bit of ambiguity is good for the edition.


0 ambiguity.

Hm... those responses sound ambiguous :smalltongue:

[McBars]

Hm... those responses sound ambiguous :smalltongue:

Silly rabbit,Those 2 quotes have nothing to do with each other.