Monte Cook IS working on 5th edition...

[hogarth]

Doesn't that pretty much invalidate the point of the 5ft step? Sounds like you turned it into a withdraw action that only gets 5ft of movement instead of half your move speed.

You could still use it for other purposes, I presume (e.g. shifting around to get in flanking position or stepping back to drink a potion).

[Archmage]

We ruled that drawing a bead or preparing a spell couldn't be done after a 5' step pretty much immediately.

Doesn't that pretty much invalidate the point of the 5ft step? Sounds like you turned it into a withdraw action that only gets 5ft of movement instead of half your move speed.

It's still useful for maintaining a flank, moving between nearby enemies in melee, and other repositioning. I don't think 5-ft step was ever necessarily intended to render the need to make concentration checks pointless unless the caster was trapped up against a wall or by an enemy with reach.

[RadiantPhoenix]

A rule that was used in a (low level) game I played once was that if someone 5ft stepped out of your threatened space, you could 5ft step after them. I don't remember if it was limited to once per round...

[tussock]

I don't think 5-ft step was ever necessarily intended to render the need to take concentration checks pointless unless the caster was trapped up against a wall or by an enemy with reach.

I think concentration checks were intended to protect casters who got trapped up against a wall or by an enemy with reach, the basic idea being you couldn't normally fail to cast your spell.

Monte's still butt-hurt about his low level Wizards from the 70's and 80's losing their precious spells. Jason Bulmahn is the same way inclined. They're doing it quite deliberately, and aren't at all concerned that giving them endless spells that always work turns them into a Fighter.

[hogarth]

Latest column: http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20111206

Oy. More tripe about how a lack of specific rules is a "good thing" because it allows GMs to make up rulings as they goes along. Except that, for consistency's sake, those on-the-fly rulings turn into house rules. And either those house rules are good (in which case it wouldn't have hurt to have them in the game rules in the first place) or bad (in which case the GM is actually making the game worse instead of better).

[CapnTthePirateG]

Sigh.

If you aren't going to try to write rules, why are we paying you again?

This is all I will say, as ranting profanity will not add much to the conversation.

[hogarth]

Sigh.

If you aren't going to try to write rules, why are we paying you again?

To play devil's advocate, there is something to be said for writing a rulebook that glosses over corner cases of the rules. For instance, I don't care if the D&D Player's Handbook doesn't have rules for drinking contests or semaphore or heraldry.

But 90% of the rules that were added to D&D between 2E and 3E is really in there because it's those honestly were Frequently Asked Questions. Now, they may have slipped up on some of the answers (e.g. requiring a move action to open doors makes movement feel awkward -- they probably would have been better off saying it takes 10' of movement or something), but that doesn't mean that trying to answer those FAQs was a bad thing!

[ModelCitizen]

Eh, this doesn't seem like insane bullshit if we're talking about things like doors. We have doors in real life. Everyone has similar expectations about how they work. The DM will never get away with saying "my story calls for you to be trapped in this room and fight waves of bugbears, so these perfectly normal wooden doors take 10 minutes to open unless you are a bugbear."

We can't refer to real life for magic, or even hitpoint damage, so those rules need to be exhaustive. I got no problem skimping on the door rules if it means more time spent explaining what the hell AMF does.

[tzor]

I was reading something about doors in a NaNoWriMo forum the other week. Heinlien once mentioned that you could cause all sorts of stuff to happen in the minds of your readers if you just throw out something like "the door dialated open" and never use it again (except for continuity purposes).

Once you throw something into the mix to dispell the "similiar expectations" on how something works you can throw in the fantasy (or th science fiction in the case of Heinlien) at whatever level you fancy.

[hogarth]

Eh, this doesn't seem like insane bullshit if we're talking about things like doors. We have doors in real life. Everyone has similar expectations about how they work.

In my experience, the most "obvious" topics incite the biggest arguments.

For instance, who would win in a 100 metre sprint: an average college-level sprinter or an Olympic-level sprinter who has to open a door at the 50 metre mark?

[Krakatoa]

Depends on if the door is Push or Pull

In all seriousness, Cook clearly has no idea how to lay out rules in the most clear and concise manner possible. Luckily I think he's just there as an idea guy. Probably the idea guy who Mearls and co listen to, and then do exactly the opposite of.

[tzor]

Depends on if the door is Push or Pull

Or which side of the door to push / pull. That happens to me all the time.

[ModelCitizen]

In my experience, the most "obvious" topics incite the biggest arguments.

For instance, who would win in a 100 metre sprint: an average college-level sprinter or an Olympic-level sprinter who has to open a door at the 50 metre mark?

I don't disagree with that at all, but those arguments can happen because both sides can bring real information to the table. An argument might happen about whether opening a door is standard or move or costs squares of movement or whatever, but "you can't do it in combat time" or "you can't do it at all" are both obvious horseshit. That makes describing how a PC interacts with a door a lower priority than describing say Phantasmal Force, where there's no way to appeal a DM decision without actual rules.

I would say this though: 5e probably needs rules for doors specifically just to avoid giving the wrong impression. 4e took a lot of flak for not providing rules for doors. 4e does have door rules, but it's the kind of game that wouldn't and people just assumed. If there's no rule for opening a door, players coming from 4e (or looking for reasons to hate 5e for being like 4e) will assume doors are impenetrable plot barriers that open when the DM says so.

[Krakatoa]

I would say this though: 5e probably needs rules for doors specifically just to avoid giving the wrong impression. 4e took a lot of flak for not providing rules for doors. 4e does have door rules, but it's the kind of game that wouldn't and people just assumed. If there's no rule for opening a door, players coming from 4e (or looking for reasons to hate 5e for being like 4e) will assume doors are impenetrable plot barriers that open when the DM says so.

Except no reasonable person would ever assume that. The only time that idea comes up is when people are making stupid disingenuous arguments to make their hated system look bad.

[Swordslinger]

To play devil's advocate, there is something to be said for writing a rulebook that glosses over corner cases of the rules. For instance, I don't care if the D&D Player's Handbook doesn't have rules for drinking contests or semaphore or heraldry.

Yeah. Playtesting time is limited, so they won't necessarily get to playtest all of the mountain of rules. And the more rules they have, the less the chance they've tested them all, and the greater the chance a bad one makes it through.

I'd prefer fewer rules that are actually proven to work rather than getting untested garbage. Having no rule at all is better than a bad rule.

[Username17]

I would say this though: 5e probably needs rules for doors specifically just to avoid giving the wrong impression. 4e took a lot of flak for not providing rules for doors. 4e does have door rules, but it's the kind of game that wouldn't and people just assumed. If there's no rule for opening a door, players coming from 4e (or looking for reasons to hate 5e for being like 4e) will assume doors are impenetrable plot barriers that open when the DM says so.

Except no reasonable person would ever assume that. The only time that idea comes up is when people are making stupid disingenuous arguments to make their hated system look bad.

Well, there's the whole thing with the actual video of Chris Perkins (I think it was Chris Perkins) running a 4e game demo and using doors exactly like that. We actually have photographic evidence that designer intent for 4e was exactly that stupid and player disempowering.

I mean yes, actual unlocked doors have real rules in the real book for opening. But locked doors actually are supposed to be unbypassable until you get the rooster key if they are in any way plot important. We have confirmation of that ridiculous hyperbole, because that's the way the 4e designers actually ran the damn things in actual demonstration games. Blue door, blue key, final destination.

-Username17

[Swordslinger]

Well, there's the whole thing with the actual video of Chris Perkins (I think it was Chris Perkins) running a 4e game demo and using doors exactly like that. We actually have photographic evidence that designer intent for 4e was exactly that stupid and player disempowering.

I mean yes, actual unlocked doors have real rules in the real book for opening. But locked doors actually are supposed to be unbypassable until you get the rooster key if they are in any way plot important. We have confirmation of that ridiculous hyperbole, because that's the way the 4e designers actually ran the damn things in actual demonstration games. Blue door, blue key, final destination.

There's actually rules for destroying doors in the 4E book as well. They're very similar to the 3E rules in fact where objects can beaten with hit point damage or a strength check.

I see no reason why Perkins couldn't do the exact same thing in 3E. Aside from his players walking, there's nothing to stop a DM from just ignoring the rules.

Which is generally why I partially do agree with Monte on one point. You're a lot better off trying to make better DMs than you are trying to make a rule for every contingency.

[hogarth]

To play devil's advocate, there is something to be said for writing a rulebook that glosses over corner cases of the rules. For instance, I don't care if the D&D Player's Handbook doesn't have rules for drinking contests or semaphore or heraldry.

Yeah. Playtesting time is limited, so they won't necessarily get to playtest all of the mountain of rules. And the more rules they have, the less the chance they've tested them all, and the greater the chance a bad one makes it through.

I'd prefer fewer rules that are actually proven to work rather than getting untested garbage. Having no rule at all is better than a bad rule.

Hold on a second. I think that 3E did an excellent job at adding reasonable rules, overall. It really does have the feeling of a FAQ to me (e.g. "Can I open a door and move in the same round?" "How long does it take to climb a ladder?" "Can I swim in chainmail?").

Contrast that with 1E, which has the feeling of "questions that Gary Gygax asked once that nobody else in the world really cares about", like rules for torches randomly extinguishing or what proportion of dungeon doors are stuck.

[Judging__Eagle]

I honestly prefer the "physical engine" model of 3e. Everything has stats, and if it has stats, the players can fuck it up, or break it down, depending on if they're horny or want to break down a wall or door.

The short list of "material statistics" was one of the more useful things out of the 3.5 DMG for me when running "Dungeon time" in the game.

[souran]

Well, there's the whole thing with the actual video of Chris Perkins (I think it was Chris Perkins) running a 4e game demo and using doors exactly like that. We actually have photographic evidence that designer intent for 4e was exactly that stupid and player disempowering.

I mean yes, actual unlocked doors have real rules in the real book for opening. But locked doors actually are supposed to be unbypassable until you get the rooster key if they are in any way plot important. We have confirmation of that ridiculous hyperbole, because that's the way the 4e designers actually ran the damn things in actual demonstration games. Blue door, blue key, final destination.

-Username17

Acutally having looked into this a little bit its a complete horseshit argument and once again is Frank twisting shit for his own purposes.

Listen to the various recordings of 4E D&D played with the developers and simiar things for 3.X. They exist, the developers played demo game that were recorded for gen con before 4E came out.

Its COMPETELY FILLED WITH THIS SHIT. EVERY SYSTEM, EVERY DEVELOPER PULLS BULLSHIT LIKE THIS TO MAKE THEIR DEMOGAME MORE LINEAR FOR THE LISTENER YOU DISENGEOUS FUCKWIT.

Seriously, convention games, public games are a TERRIBLE way of analyzing "developer intent" because the developers are not running a game they are playing a commercial.

They ignore rules, tell people "no you can't do that" and in general railroad the game in a really obvious direction.

This is remarkably similar to what happens when you sign up to play at any kind of "official" table at a con. The gmae you get is cut short, run incorrectly, and designed to put your but in a seat for 1.5 hours and then have you go on your merry way.

So no what the developers didn't want was for people to have a takeway that was "you can't open locks in 4E" what they werre attempting to achieve was a demonstration of the combat mechanics. Letting the party skip out because somebody could get out side the scenery would screw up a game that probaly had exactly 1 combat planned in advance anyway.

[hogarth]

I honestly prefer the "physical engine" model of 3e. Everything has stats, and if it has stats, the players can fuck it up, or break it down, depending on if they're horny or want to break down a wall or door.

The short list of "material statistics" was one of the more useful things out of the 3.5 DMG for me when running "Dungeon time" in the game.

Exactly. I don't think it improves the game of D&D to go from "a forest fire does 1d6 damage per round plus suffocation plus you risk catching on fire" to "make something up". It might be a necessary sacrifice to remove rules for forest fires in favour of something else, but don't try to spin it as an improvement.

[ModelCitizen]

Exactly. I don't think it improves the game of D&D to go from "a forest fire does 1d6 damage per round plus suffocation plus you risk catching on fire" to "make something up". It might be a necessary sacrifice to remove rules for forest fires in favour of something else, but don't try to spin it as an improvement.

Standing in fire does hitpoint damage so it's hard for a player to appeal to realism. Standing in fire in fact does really screwy hitpoint damage (level-independent source vs leveled creature possibly with non-scaling resistance) so any rule I make up on the fly is likely to be stupid. And PCs throw fire around all the time so it's really likely to come up.

I'd say burning terrain needs clear rules, for sure, but the writers only have too much time and space. Writing workable rules for burning terrain or illusions means spending less time on corner cases players can figure out for themselves.

[Swordslinger]

Exactly. I don't think it improves the game of D&D to go from "a forest fire does 1d6 damage per round plus suffocation plus you risk catching on fire" to "make something up". It might be a necessary sacrifice to remove rules for forest fires in favour of something else, but don't try to spin it as an improvement.

I really don't see a problem with fires that do different levels of damage, because different fires are different. Some are hotter than others.

Moving over a slow burning woodpile should probably be different damage compared to moving through a house engulfed in flames and that's different compared to jumping into the heart of a smelter or getting blasted by a high pressure steam vent. You're probably not going to have a table for all of these, so it's going to take some DM adjudication anyway.

[ishy]

With this colum by monty I get the feeling he just sits there and starts writing. This can be entertaining but it also means that his colum makes no sense and has no purpose whatsoever.

First he starts talking about a theromostat. And then ties that to how you present information changes what information you convey, which is of course true and known by pretty much everybody. Though still a very interesting topic point and something you really need to make a decision about before writing anysort of information.

Now he somehow forgot what he was talking about and notices he still needs to write a lot so he rereads his last few sentences and starts with a new intro for dm empowerement.

So he starts talking about how making and remembering rules is hard, so it is better that a dm makes stuff up on the fly (because we all know that random people are supposed to better at it than paid profs right?) and how actually knowing the rules is bad.

And to top it off he starts sperging about how having no rules known by the players is the best because now they just keep asking mother may I for the great and perfect dm to be able to say no you can't do this. And after the 14x asking if something is possible finally find something the dm allows. Because with our no rules rule set we managed to make all dms perfect game designers and adjusters.

- Edit: forgot about the fahrenheit thing for a bit, it was late

[hogarth]

First he starts talking about a theromostat that is set on a setting so hot that it almost boils water.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but the U.S. uses the Fahrenheit system.