Quick questions: javelins with dueling style and natural weapon proficiency

[JNAProductions]

So what's the action to throw the weapon? It is, according to you, separate from the Attack action, so is it a bonus action? a reaction? an action?

And what's the RAW on making a sandwich? Can you do it without using your definition of houserules?

[ThorOdinson]

Wrong, the pattern very explicitly holds in combat


(emphasis mine)

The quote you reference is referring to an earlier section that states "The players don't need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." Outside of combat, a DM might resolve several player actions at once before proceeding to step 3 and narrating the results. In combat, the players take turns and one action is resolved at a time.

You are overlooking the fact that in Combat players resolve their own actions and are not dependent on a narrative description provided by the DM to update the game. This destroys your argument.

[JNAProductions]

You are overlooking the fact that in Combat players resolve their own actions and are not dependent on a narrative description provided by the DM. This destroys your argument.

So what if the player doesn't know something about the world that the DM does? Say, there's a pit trap between them and their foe, and they want to use a melee attack. Does the PC get to just not trigger the pit trap because they don't know about it?

Moreover, can you quote the actual rules saying that the core gameplay no longer applies in combat?

[Garhi]

You are overlooking the fact that in Combat players resolve their own actions and are not dependent on a narrative description provided by the DM to update the game. This destroys your argument.

Please provide a rules citation that states that the core gameplay loop doesn't hold in combat. I've provided a rules citation that states, very explicitly and clearly, that it does hold in combat.

[ThorOdinson]

Please provide a rules citation that states that the core gameplay loop doesn't hold in combat. I've provided a rules citation that states, very explicitly and clearly, that it does hold in combat.

Sure. Kindly provide a citation for Core Gameplay Loop first.

[JNAProductions]

Sure. Kindly provide a citation for Core Gameplay Loop first.

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
... the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon.

Done and done.

[ThorOdinson]

Done and done.

Where exactly do you see Core Gameplay Loop? Can you underline it in the text you cited? I am not seeing the words "Core Gameplay Loop".

[JNAProductions]

Where exactly do you see Core Gameplay Loop?

Alright. When the rulebooks say:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
... the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon.

What rule do you have that that does not apply in combat?

For future reference, when we talk about the core gameplay loop, that is what we're referring to. I know you love having other people define things, so that's our definition (and rules developers' too!) of 5E's core gameplay loop.

[ThorOdinson]

Alright. When the rulebooks say:



What rule do you have that that does not apply in combat?

For future reference, when we talk about the core gameplay loop, that is what we're referring to. I know you love having other people define things, so that's our definition (and rules developers' too!) of 5E's core gameplay loop.

Ok, so you have a house rule now.

[Garhi]

Ok, so you have a house rule now.

Feel free to substitute the entirety of the "How to play" section from page 6 of the PHB for every instance where we say "core gameplay loop."

We're referring to a set of rules within the book, it's not a house rule to come up with a short hand way of referring to that chunk of rules on the forums.

[Gale]

I'm kind of curious how ThorOdinson would respond if when the new Sage Advice is released it explicitly clarifies that Dueling does in fact work with Thrown weapons and that was always the intent.

Would he admit he was wrong? Or would he double down and claim the game designers are choosing to rewrite the rules, possibly because they can't comprehend their own writing.

Does he believe that the intent of the rules don't matter and that RAW is the only right way to play the game?

I'm only positing this because he seems excruciatingly certain his interpretation of the rules are correct. I don't really understand why either, but I'm skeptical of anyone who seems 100% certain of any belief, so much so that they can't even humor the opinions of others. I feel like myself and others have presented compelling arguments that would cause most other people to at least reexamine their stance, but he chooses not to. Most of the time he seems to just go back to reasserting his original point, that the javelin isn't in your hand when damage rolls are done therefore the bonus doesn't count. As if this one fact alone is an unshakeable truth and that aren't underlying assumptions about the game mechanics that make this stance highly dubious.

I seriously feel he lacks some ability to understand other's peoples points and perspectives or at the very least chooses not to.

I'm still bothered personally, that he hasn't addressed this issue that his interpretation of Dueling, if it is correct, immediately raises the question, "Why is this so poorly written?" Again, terms like "melee weapon attack" are used all the time to point out when a mechanic is only supposed to work with a melee attack but for some reason Dueling lacks this language. Why doesn't it use clear terminology that the reader is already familiar with to explain a mechanic? Why does it choose to explain it in such a vague manner, hoping that players understand the game mechanics as thoroughly as ThorOdinson does, and don't make silly assumptions like "attack and damage rolls are resolved before the weapon is considered to be no longer wielded and in one's hand."

It just... seems odd. It doesn't totally debunk his claims but it draws them so readily into question that if I held his stance I would feel some need to assert why this problem isn't as big of a concern as someone might think. At the very least I might acknowledge it and then say, "I understand that you feel it's poorly worded. I do not. Or I simply don't care. Rules do what they say they do no matter how difficult they may be to some to comprehend."

But instead like many points people have brought up ThorOdinson just seems to want to ignore them. Maybe he's too fatigued by all this to keep responding to every single person and response but I have to say it irks me quite a bit.

Honestly, it's hard not to feel like his primary concern is winning rather than having a proper discussion and discovering any kind of truth about the mechanic.

[Daghoulish]

Ok, so you have a house rule now.

My word, not everything is a house rule! A name is not a house rule. Nothing in that section is changed by giving it a name it just makes it easier to reference back too. That's like calling Salami a house rule because someone has Genua in their hand.

[JNAProductions]

Ok, so you have a house rule now.

What part of...

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
... the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon.

is a houserule? That's straight from the rules text.

Just to be clear, would you consider someone calling their Sun Blade sword "The Radiant Dawn" a houserule? Because calling this:

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
... the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon.

the core gameplay loop is just giving it a name. It doesn't change how it functions in game.

It just easier to type core gameplay loop than it is to type the whole thing out.

[ThorOdinson]

Feel free to substitute the entirety of the "How to play" section from page 6 of the PHB for every instance where we say "core gameplay loop."

We're referring to a set of rules within the book, it's not a house rule to come up with a short hand way of referring to that chunk of rules on the forums.

Changing "basic pattern" into Core Gameplay Loop is a house rule.

You also insist that the DM must explicitly narrate each and every choice and action that the players make when the actual section destroys your assertion.

"In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

Players are given permission here in this section to take turns choosing and resolving actions and are not dependent on the DM narrating their choices and actions.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ok, so you have a house rule now.

Remember kids, if you name it something different even though it means the same thing, it's a house rule.

What is the difference between "the play of DND unfolds in this basic pattern" and "the core gameplay loop of DND is..." ?
Hint: There isn't a difference, they mean the same thing

Break it down into the component words: Core, Gameplay, Loop and Basic, Play, Pattern.

[Garhi]

Changing "basic pattern" into Core Gameplay Loop is a house rule.

You also insist that the DM must explicitly narrate each and every choice and action that the players make when the actual section destroys your assertion.

"In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

Players are given permission here in this section to take turns choosing and resolving actions and are not dependent on the DM narrating their choices and actions.

You're taking this rule out of the context in which it's found. The rule you are citing is referencing back to this portion of the rules:

The players don't need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

The rule you cite specifies that in combat the players do in fact take turns. It does not change the fact that it's the DM that "decides how to resolve those actions."

And again, the rules are very clear that the "basic pattern" of:
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
holds during combat. It's spelled out quite explicitly in this portion of the rules:

This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon.

[ThorOdinson]

Remember kids, if you name it something different even though it means the same thing, it's a house rule.

What is the difference between "the play of DND unfolds in this basic pattern" and "the core gameplay loop of DND is..." ?
Hint: There isn't a difference, they mean the same thing

Break it down into the component words: Core, Gameplay, Loop and Basic, Play, Pattern.

"The play of DnD unfolds in this basic pattern" is merely asserting a description of the game play.

Changing that phrase to Core Gameplay Loop asserts that it is prescriptive rather than descriptive.

If the DM forgets to explicitly narrate a player move does that move not happen in game?

According to you, the DM must micro-manage every game relevant choice and action the player makes with a mandatory explicitly narrated account.

But the section you quote permits players to make choices and resolve actions for themselves apart from DM explicitly narrating their every choice and step. The "basic pattern" is a little different in Combat. Oh well. Its just a basic pattern.

[JNAProductions]

"The play of DnD unfolds in this basic pattern" is merely asserting a description of the game play.

Changing that phrase to Core Gameplay Loop asserts that it is prescriptive rather than descriptive.

If the DM forgets to explicitly narrate a player move does that move not happen in game?

According to you, the DM must micro-manage every game relevant choice and action the player makes with a mandatory explicitly narrated account.

But the section you quote permits players to make choices and resolve actions for themselves apart from DM explicitly narrating their every choice and step. The "basic pattern" is a little different in Combat. Oh well. Its just a basic pattern.

Why do you get to decide that some things are just descriptive and some are actual rules text?

Can you cite the passage that says what we refer to as the core gameplay loop is just fluff text?

And what happens is a player attempts an illegal move, or does something that the DM knows would not happen on their turn, such as walking freely over a pit trap?

[ThorOdinson]

Why do you get to decide that some things are just descriptive and some are actual rules text?

Can you cite the passage that says what we refer to as the core gameplay loop is just fluff text?

And what happens is a player attempts an illegal move, or does something that the DM knows would not happen on their turn, such as walking freely over a pit trap?

What you are referring to as Core Gameplay Loop is just a "basic pattern".

[JNAProductions]

What you are referring to as Core Gameplay Loop is just a "basic pattern".

Okay. That doesn't make it not a rule.

Again-what happens if I declare my PC walks 30' to stab a foe, but unbeknownst to me, there's a pit trap in the way? Do I just get to not trigger the trap, because the DM has no input?

[ThorOdinson]

Okay. That doesn't make it not a rule.

Again-what happens if I declare my PC walks 30' to stab a foe, but unbeknownst to me, there's a pit trap in the way? Do I just get to not trigger the trap, because the DM has no input?

In Combat the DM and players take turns making choices and resolving actions. If its the players turn he makes choices and resolves actions. It is up to the DM to interrupt the player's turn with any surprise. Otherwise the player makes choices and resolves actions and is not dependent on a DM making explicit narrations at every step.

"In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

[ProsecutorGodot]

But the section you quote permits players to make choices and resolve actions for themselves apart from DM explicitly narrating their every choice and step. The "basic pattern" is a little different in Combat. Oh well. Its just a basic pattern.

Seems like you're suggesting I can do whatever I want in combat and the DM has zero say in the matter. That's the only way you would be correct in asserting that the player resolve their actions entirely separate from the DM.

[ThorOdinson]

Seems like you're suggesting I can do whatever I want in combat and the DM has zero say in the matter. That's the only way you would be correct in asserting that the player resolve their actions entirely separate from the DM.

No. Players take turns and make choices to resolve actions.

"In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

In Combat the DM must interject to interrupt the permission the player has to take his turn and make choices and resolve actions.

[JNAProductions]

No. Players take turns and make choices to resolve actions.

"In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

In Combat the DM must interject to interrupt the permission the player has to take his turn and make choices and resolve actions.

Where does the DM get that permission from?

[Garhi]

No. Players take turns and make choices to resolve actions.

"In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

In Combat the DM must interject to interrupt the permission the player has to take his turn and make choices and resolve actions.

Again, this rule does not say what you say it does when you read it within the context of the other rules surrounding it.

It does not read "the player takes a turn choosing and resolving their own actions."

If I, as a player, wish to make an attack against an enemy, I am in fact wholly incapable of resolving it on my own because I don't know pertinent details like the target's armor class or remaining hitpoints.

The "basic pattern" of D&D states that players describe what they want to do, but it's the DM that decides how to resolve it.

The rules text that the "basic pattern" of how to play D&D holds even while in combat is very explicit and clear, why do you keep ignoring it?

[ThorOdinson]

Where does the DM get that permission from?

As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them. (Page 4, 5e DMG)

[ProsecutorGodot]

As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them. (Page 4, 5e DMG)

So house rules are RAW then?

[ThorOdinson]

So house rules are RAW then?

The DM is empowered to make house rules in general in DnD. This has never been at issue. I have always indicated you can run games by house rule should you want to.

There is restriction on this power in Adventure's League where SAC and PHB are official sources and house rules from individual DMs are unofficial house rules.

[JNAProductions]

The DM is empowered to make house rules in general in DnD. This has never been at issue. I have always indicated you can run games by house rule should you want to.

There is restriction on this power in Adventure's League where SAC and PHB are official sources and house rules from individual DMs are unofficial house rules.

So how does an AL DM use a pit trap that the player does not know about?

[ThorOdinson]

Again, this rule does not say what you say it does when you read it within the context of the other rules surrounding it.

It does not read "the player takes a turn choosing and resolving their own actions."

If I, as a player, wish to make an attack against an enemy, I am in fact wholly incapable of resolving it on my own because I don't know pertinent details like the target's armor class or remaining hitpoints.

The "basic pattern" of D&D states that players describe what they want to do, but it's the DM that decides how to resolve it.

The rules text that the "basic pattern" of how to play D&D holds even while in combat is very explicit and clear, why do you keep ignoring it?

When you actually get to combat, the specific rules of Combat supersede any "basic pattern".

Chapter 9: Combat

This chapter provides the rules you need for your characters and monsters to engage in combat, whether it is a brief skirmish or an extended conflict in a dungeon or on the field of battle. Throughout this chapter the rules address you, the player or Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master controls all the monsters and non player characters involved in combat, and each other player controls an adventurer. "You" can also mean the character or monster that you control.

On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed—sometimes called your walking speed—is noted on your character sheet.

The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.

The “Movement and Position” section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.

You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can’t decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in “Actions in Combat.”