Quote from: Batman;903031It's about as dissociative as spell levels, hit points, rage, hit die healing, etc.

Rage limited per day, Hit Die healing = Dissociative

Spell levels, Hit points aren't.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903033I'll take Distinction Denial for $500 Alex...



What is "Disingenuous 4venger Fuckery conflating Abstraction and Dissociation?"

What the fuck does this have to do specifically with 4e or "avenging" it? I LIKE dissociative mechanics because they've been pretty prevalent in D&D over the years, emerging heavily with 3e and onwards. And apparently no one EVER makes a decision based in how many hit points they have remaining in your games. Good for you I guess?

Quote from: Enlightened;903035Rage limited per day, Hit Die healing = Dissociative

Spell levels, Hit points don't.

Oh yeah? So wizards all know they have exactly 4 spell slots remaining of 4th level and that all spells in D&D are assigned a number to help catalog them? Funny, never read that description in any of the books regarding D&D in the past 20 years

Quote from: Batman;903037Oh yeah? So wizards all know they have exactly 4 spell slots remaining of 4th level and that all spells in D&D are assigned a number to help catalog them? Funny, never read that description in any of the books regarding D&D in the past 20 years

In AD&D, spells take up a number of pages in a spell book equal to their level and require a number of minutes per level to memorize.

Spell levels have been an in-world construct since AD&D.

Quote from: Batman;903036What the fuck does this have to do specifically with 4e or "avenging" it? I LIKE dissociative mechanics because they've been pretty prevalent in D&D over the years, emerging heavily with 3e and onwards. And apparently no one EVER makes a decision based in how many hit points they have remaining in your games. Good for you I guess?

It's because you are conflating abstractions with dissociations.

Hit points are an abstraction but not a dissociation.

And I think, Enlightened, that you're letting your bias hang out.

Hit Points have ALWAYS been a major disassociation.

For Gord's sake man, do we really need to re-enact the whole goddammed 'What are Hit Points' merry-go-round for ya? For the umpteenth time?  Really?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;903040And I think, Enlightened, that you're letting your bias hang out.

Hit Points have ALWAYS been a major disassociation.

For Gord's sake man, do we really need to re-enact the whole goddammed 'What are Hit Points' merry-go-round for ya? For the umpteenth time?  Really?

I didn't bring them up.

And no HPs are not a disssociation. They have a pervicable in-world conterpart - well-being.

The character (just like a real world boxer, etc.) can perceive when they are beat up / tired / about to fall / close to the end of their energy, etc.

Quote from: Enlightened;902964Why would the character/player get to decide something like that?

It seems strange that someone can volitionally choose when someone else is standing just right or choose when you have particularly good momentum, etc.

Being able to choose something about opponents or the world using a meta resource is pretty full-on dissociated.

Think of it more as "Come up with idea to take advantage of this on the spot" rather than "Change reality to fit the action".
Combine that with dirty fighting and probably the character allways trying to line things like this up in every combat. But these are those times where they can put extra oomph into it or get someone else to.

Quote from: Omega;903044Think of it more as "Come up with idea to take advantage of this on the spot" rather than "Change reality to fit the action".
Combine that with dirty fighting and probably the character allways trying to line things like this up in every combat. But these are those times where they can put extra oomph into it or get someone else to.

The thing that makes Superiority Dice dissociated is that it's the player (not the character or chance or the details of the situation, etc.) deciding when "things are just right" for these things to work.

If they were tied to 1) an in-world in-character resource (like spells), 2) a die roll or 3) the situation (as opposed to being an active decision) they wouldn't be dissociative.

EDIT: That being said, the idea offered above about considering them to be depletable "battle focus" energy or something may have some merit in terms of making them less dissociative. I'll give that some thought.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903034Fixed that for you, bro.

It was certainly less prominent in earlier versions of D&D but the use of dissociative mechanics have existed since 1e as far as I can remember. Even leaving behind Vancian magic's per day resource management, I think the 1e Monk in Oriental Adventure had once per day abilities too. I would struggle to make a distinction between Ki and martial focus but YMMV

Quote from: Skywalker;903049It was certainly less prominent in earlier versions of D&D but the use of dissociative mechanics have existed since 1e as far as I can remember. Even leaving behind Vancian magic's per day resource management, I think the 1e Monk in Oriental Adventure had once per day abilities too. I would struggle to make a distinction between Ki and martial focus but YMMV

Something only being usable one per day, etc. isn't what makes something dissociative.

If the resource is perceivable and controllable by the character in-world (as spells are) then it's not dissociative.

If only the player controls the resource, it's dissociative.

Quote from: Enlightened;903052Something only being usable one per day, etc. isn't what makes something dissociative.

If the resource is perceivable and controllable by the character in-world (as spells are) then it's not dissociative.

If only the player controls the resource, it's dissociative.

I understand the concept but it becomes less easy to distinguish with the likes of Ki or Rages per day IMO.

Regardless, its certainly not a stand out in the 5e ruleset, where such mechanics are not uncommon. As such, except as a broad criticism of that edition, I don't see how the Battle Master stands out in this regard.

Just so I have a point of reference Enlightened - and this is not intended as a 'gotcha' question - what is your preferred method of giving non-magical fighter types the ability to do interesting stuff in combat without having them also go "I trip him, I trip him, I trip him, I trip him," in a way that is generally seen as undesirable?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;903056Just so I have a point of reference Enlightened - and this is not intended as a 'gotcha' question - what is your preferred method of giving non-magical fighter types the ability to do interesting stuff in combat

Well, for a frame of reference, I haven't actually played/ran 5E yet. I read it when it came out and shelved it because it seemed full of stuff I wasn't interested in.

I have been recently re-looking at it with the idea of running it to see what it's really like. I want to determine, through actually running it, whether to hack 5E into something I would like or just take things I like from 5E and add them to B/X, which I already know I like.

For a second frame of reference, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "interesting stuff to do in combat." I typically run B/X in which fighters don't really have any special abilities and it seems fine. People say what they want to accomplish, I say "Okay, roll a [something]" and then it happens or it doesn't happen. I generally like to run it as Combat-as-Failure-State with really short combats.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;903056without having them also go "I trip him, I trip him, I trip him, I trip him," in a way that is generally seen as undesirable?

That sounds like a 3E-ism. I have next to zero experience with 3E. Nothing like that has ever happened when running B/X.

If I were going to make up special abilities for fighters, I personally would make them dependent on die rolls* or dependent on the situation**.

* On a successful hit that is also a natural even number, you can opt to use this ability, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the die.)

** If you and an ally are both engaged with the same enemy, you can opt to use this ability against that enemy, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the in-world situation.)

Quote from: Enlightened;903063If I were going to make up special abilities for fighters, I personally would make them dependent on die rolls* or dependent on the situation**.

* On a successful hit that is also a natural even number, you can opt to use this ability, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the die.)

** If you and an ally are both engaged with the same enemy, you can opt to use this ability against that enemy, etc. (The existence of the "opening" or "opportunity" is decided by the in-world situation.)

So, you prefer 13th Age mechanics?

(Personally, I agree that approach is the more immersive one. It's also the one used in 13th Age).