|
Power Player posted:I'm guessing that if I bring Dex up to +3, I should wear light armor even though I can get medium armor, until I get that feat that lets you add +3 to your AC for medium armor. Breastplate(400gp) will give you 1 more AC than wearing studded leather and wont impose disadvantage on stealth before you have medium armor master. You can use a shield in your off hand once you are proficient, there isn't much point wielding a second crossbow or a melee weapon(assuming you have crossbow expert).
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Yakse posted:Breastplate(400gp) will give you 1 more AC than wearing studded leather and wont impose disadvantage on stealth before you have medium armor master. You can use a shield in your off hand once you are proficient, there isn't much point wielding a second crossbow or a melee weapon(assuming you have crossbow expert).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Power Player posted:I thought you needed the hand crossbow to get the second attack from crossbow expert. I don't have the book with me right now. You don't. Yakse posted:Breastplate(400gp) will give you 1 more AC than wearing studded leather and wont impose disadvantage on stealth before you have medium armor master. You can use a shield in your off hand once you are proficient, there isn't much point wielding a second crossbow or a melee weapon(assuming you have crossbow expert). The answer is a spell, as always. Grab Mage Armor with Magical Secrets and enjoy your 16-18 AC with no armor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:The answer is a spell, as always. Grab Mage Armor with Magical Secrets and enjoy your 16-18 AC with no armor. Not worth wasting magical secrets on the one AC it would provide over studded leather, or spending the spell slot, and you don't get it until level 10 as valor. It's 1 less AC than the breastplate provides, and school of valor gets medium armor prof at level 3. Plus there isn't a downside to wearing armor unless you have an unarmored class feature/use armor that imposes disadvantage on stealth. Edit: on that note - I know unarmored defenses don't stack with each other, but does Mage armor count you as armored? Yakse fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Yakse posted:Not worth wasting magical secrets on, or spending the spell slot, and you don't get it until level 10 as valor. It's 1 less AC than the breastplate provides, and school of valor gets medium armor prof at level 3. Mage Armor is +2 AC more than a Breastplate, which is 14 + Dex (max 2). It's +1 AC more than Half Plate, the strongest Medium armour. It's the same AC as Plate, the strongest Heavy armour. Yakse posted:Edit: on that note - I know unarmored defenses don't stack with each other, but does Mage armor count you as armored? Mage Armour doesn't count as wearing armour, but Unarmoured Defence features say "your AC equals..." and so does Mage Armor, so they don't stack. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Mage Armor is +2 AC more than a Breastplate, which is 14 + Dex (max 2). Sorry, I meant to say until your dex reaches 18 it won't provide any extra. Losing out on a level 1-5 spell for the 1 extra AC it will provide from level 12+ is not worthwile IMO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Wait, does mage armor set your base AC as 13 or 16? I could have sworn it says 16 in the book, but in the rules on Wizard's site it says 13.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Power Player posted:Wait, does mage armor set your base AC as 13 or 16? I could have sworn it says 16 in the book, but in the rules on Wizard's site it says 13. It's 13 + Dex modifier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Ettin posted:Maybe they've carefully secured some of the biggest metal deposits so they can use it to tame rust monsters with. Chitin-armored, Macuahuitl-wielding Rust monster riders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Power Player posted:Wait, does mage armor set your base AC as 13 or 16? I could have sworn it says 16 in the book, but in the rules on Wizard's site it says 13. I think Barkskin may be what you were thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Dairy Power posted:I think Barkskin may be what you were thinking of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Well jumped into a friends online group to try out another class I never played before. Was having a pretty good time as a support/healing druid till I hit level 2, now I spend every chance I get throwing myself into melee and bear crushing bitches left and right! So much drat fun! Any tips for feats to make him even more awesome fun? Maybe Mobile, charge or sentinel if I want to try tanking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Moon druids are awesome. You don't have to increase any stats if you don't want to, just take feats that let you do stuff. The best combo requires a friend. Convince a melee guy who would be good with a lance or something to pick up Mounted Combatant and ride you. Pick up Sentinel. The former, among other things, lets the rider force enemies to attack them instead of the mount, the latter lets you use your reaction to hit them first. If you're a beast with a restraining grab or chance to prone, the enemy will have disadvantage for the attack. Sentinel with proning also lets you completely stuff disengages. Mage Slayer tightens the noose you have around adjacent enemies even more, and makes you less likely to get exploited by Beast-targeting spells. They'll only be able to do cute stuff like try to shove or grapple at that point unless they want to get hit. For other feats, Martial Adept can be pretty good because beast forms can get pretty high strength and dex for free. No one's gonna expect a 20 str polar bear to steal their sword and shield, or knock them back and frighten them. Try the Giant Hyena form over the bear and see if you can make it work. It's tankier, faster, and potentially huge damage and extreme mobility if you position right and steal all the kills. For non-Moon Druids especially the Giant Poisonous Snake is also good: highly accurate, lots of potential damage, and 18 dexterity for initiative or higher saves on the martial adept dice. The dumbest combo which I thought up is to cast longstrider on yourself and turn into a whale 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
slydingdoor posted:Mounted Bear combat! Thank you, we have a fighter in the group so I'll see if I can sucker him into some bear mounted rampages. I'll probably go with sentinel first since that is pretty drat nice, mage slayer is also a really good idea. Being a druid is actually really making me want the monster manual to come out so I can see if there are any other crazy things to turn into. Edit: This may be a bit gamey but would I be able to cast barkskin then turn into a bear so my AC wasn't awful?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
All that and you didn't mention what happens when a moon druid puts on an Amulet of Health?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
I wanted that to be a surprise. Also yeah you can barkskin and keep concentrating on it in beast form. e; One more thing, the DM's basic rules have most if not all of the beasts in them for free already. slydingdoor fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
You can also try multiclassing if you don't mind the progression hit. Fighter [Battle Master] 3 or Monk 1+ is pretty solid. The one level Dip in Monk might deny you the level 20 shenanigans (who even cares really) but nets +Dex +Wis to AC, which shoots most of your good beast forms into being even more durable. e: Oh and I guess a use of Flurry of Blows after every rest. e: I have no idea how Extra Attack works with the Multiattack beasts have. Do they multiattack again with their second attack or is it just one natural attack? Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
ritorix posted:All that and you didn't mention what happens when a moon druid puts on an Amulet of Health? I'll bite, what happens when you use an health amulet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Grimpond posted:I'll bite, what happens when you use an health amulet? It sets your con to 19. For most characters that is +2 or so extra HP per level (if your con started at 14, a reasonable number). For a moon druid, it alters the form you shift into, which have a lot more hit dice than the original druid. So a dire wolf for example goes from 37HP to 47HP. 5d10+10 to 5d10+20. Which adds to your 'fake hp' buffer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
ritorix posted:It sets your con to 19. For most characters that is +2 or so extra HP per level (if your con started at 14, a reasonable number).  Is that a specific affect of the amulet on the moon druid, or is that something from the class?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Thats just how CON bonuses work with hit dice. The wolf starts with 15 con (+2HP/hit die) and you are boosting it to 19 (+4/hit dice). For 5 hit dice, that's 10 bonus HP. The absurb longstrider killer whale would go from 13 CON (+1/hit die) to 19, so 12d12+12 to 12d12+48. 90 to 126HP. A 21CON mammoth would actually lose HP as they are forced to a 19CON.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Thats just how CON bonuses work with hit dice. The wolf starts with 15 con (+2HP/hit die) and you are boosting it to 19 (+4/hit dice). For 5 hit dice, that's 10 bonus HP. Oh right, CON calculations, durr. That is pretty awesome though
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
The amulet doesn't hose you if your con is higher than 19, unless the DM says so I guess. Secret curse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
I guess it's up to the DM?  Serious question: I'm on the fence on getting this- jank aside, which I can look over. What I'm concerned about is certain consultants whose names shall not be mentioned. I I buy the books, do they see even one red cent? If not, I will gladly story game the gently caress Out of it just to spite them  (Goddamn typing on an iPhone suuuu ucks)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Well, i'm planning to buff non-casters a ton by giving people access to guns and grenades IMC. Im quite curious to see what the long term ramifications of this are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Mewnie posted:I guess it's up to the DM? I don't believe consultants receive any sort of royalty percentage on something like this. They generally get paid a flat fee, if that, up front. That said, if you feel that strongly about the consultants issue then buying it regardless of whether they see any money out of it sends the message that it's OK for game publishers like WotC to reach out to toxic elements and namedrop them for nerd cred because people will buy their games anyway. Personally if you don't like the idea of supporting that sort of thing and you think Next is full of jank I'd just save my money and play something else. There are plenty of games out there without that sort of issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
So stealth rules are hard. They have always been at least a bit poo poo. What would good stealth rules look like in a tactical combat system like D&D's?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So stealth rules are hard. They have always been at least a bit poo poo. What would good stealth rules look like in a tactical combat system like D&D's? Maybe one of the problems is that in-combat and out-of-combat stealth are fundamentally different things. "Sneak past the guards without getting noticed" seems to me like it should use different rules than "stab an already-engaged opponent from an unexpected direction". Like, you don't need to be hidden or invisibile to get around someone who's focussed on the fight they're already in and hit them in the back. You don't even really need to sneak, just quietly and quickly move to an unexpected position. It almost seems like "stealth and concealment" should be the out-of-combat thing and "skirmish" or "outflank" or something should be the in-combat thing. Give a bonus for using cover or environment or something, but when two sides of bruisers are struggling for their lives and there's maybe one or two ranged attackers focussing on firing quickly and accurately into the melee, it's not hard to imagine a small quiet figure flitting between shadows and setting up an unexpected attack. I have no idea on out-of-combat sneaking rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Well, i'm planning to buff non-casters a ton by giving people access to guns and grenades IMC. Im quite curious to see what the long term ramifications of this are. Have the wizards explode at random for good measure and you have now created Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Ronwayne posted:Have the wizards explode at random for good measure and you have now created Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. Perils of the Warp improve any game
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Your ability to end the game at any moment is balanced by the game's ability to end you at any moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Maybe one of the problems is that in-combat and out-of-combat stealth are fundamentally different things. "Sneak past the guards without getting noticed" seems to me like it should use different rules than "stab an already-engaged opponent from an unexpected direction". Like, you don't need to be hidden or invisibile to get around someone who's focussed on the fight they're already in and hit them in the back. You don't even really need to sneak, just quietly and quickly move to an unexpected position. Yeah, stealth rules become kind of a mess when the out-of-combat sneak around undetected use collides with the in-combat get into position sneakily or snipe people from the bushes uses. This (and of course natural language) is why the surprise rules are so nonsensical. I'd personally do what you proposed: stealth in combat should be less about trying to stay completely hidden, it should be more about manouvering for position in such a way that you can surprise your enemy (or basically, making a Stealth check as a part of your move in order to gain advantage). Outside of combat, I really like the idea of Group Stealth, because it allows for the group to move around stealthily even if one of them is a dwarf in full plate. At least in 3e if one of the group members had a crap Stealth bonus it penalized the entire group, because it locked the entire group out of sneaky activities outside of making them "The Rogue plays Mission Impossible while everyone else twiddled their thumbs." I'd basically simplify the surprise rules by saying "If the group succeeds on their Group Stealth check, they surprise the enemy." That's it. Of course, if there are multiple groups of enemies with different passive perception scores some of the enemies might be surprised while some are not. That I feel would be the most elegant way to salvage the surprise rules, which at least to me look like an interesting idea with bad wording. I especially love the fact that surprise rounds have been replaced with surprised creatures acting normally but being stunned for the first round. It actually shows that they're not only thinking of conditions as exact in-world things but as keywords that can be used to represent a number of things in the game-world. It's really elegant in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So stealth rules are hard. They have always been at least a bit poo poo. What would good stealth rules look like in a tactical combat system like D&D's? It's not fully fleshed out, but I'd do something like this: Sneak Points represent how stealthy and shifty you're being. Sneak points outside of combat can be a single track for the entire group of PCs (when the party is trying to infiltrate as a group) or individuals - the DM determines which is appropriate for a given situation, and can shift between them relatively easily (if your group has 5 sneak points, it's effectively as if each character had 5 sneak points. If the rogue decides to split off from the party and scout ahead, you start tracking the rogue and the party separately at 5 sneak points each.) Sneak point totals break down roughly as follows: Five Sneak Points: The gold standard. The creatures in question are completely unaware of your presence. Four Sneak Points: Creatures you're trying to avoid know something's up - perhaps it's a scent on the wind, the uneasy feeling that the patrol you offed hasn't checked in recently, "it's quiet - too quiet", etc. But you're so quiet and stealthy they don't know what specifically is up. If asked where they think you are, they will gesture vaguely, probably in the wrong direction. Three Sneak Points: Creatures know generally where you are, but not specifically at this very second. They can point in your general direction. Once a creature is aware of your presence (for example, if you've stabbed it in the back) you'll need some kind of special assistance to go above 3 sneak points - people try to keep an eye on you once they've spotted you! Two Sneak Points: Creatures know where you are in a relatively specific sense - within a few squares or a 30 foot area, say. But you're elusive enough that if asked to point directly at you, they couldn't. One Sneak Point: Creatures know where you are but have trouble tracking you - either you keep ducking behind cover, circling around behind them like a jerk, or just generally being evasive. Zero Sneak Points: Creatures can see you. You're not being sneaky at all! When you attack a creature - whether from melee or range - always subtract one sneak point if you have any sneak points. In addition, you can spend sneak points (down to a minimum of 0 - you can't go negative) in the following ways: Outside of combat: Spend 1 sneak point to create a distraction, lure a guard out of position, or otherwise mess with the perceptions of creatures you're hiding from. At the start of combat: Spend 3 sneak points to act during the surprise round. At the start of your turn, as a free action: Spend 1 sneak point to attack with advantage. As a reaction: Spend 1 sneak point to impose disadvantage on an attack roll against you. Spend 1 sneak point to gain advantage on a dexterity saving throw. As a bonus action: Spend 1 sneak point to attempt to pick a creature's pocket. Gaining Sneak Points As a general rule, outside of combat, a successful Stealth check will add one sneak point; if you beat the required difficulty by 5 or more, add two instead. Other successful checks may add sneak points as well if appropriate (if you're doing a noncombat infiltration skill challenge, you can almost think of the party's sneak points pool as 'heat', and maybe successfully bribing a guard or fast-talking your way past a patrol would add a sneak point). Failed Sneak checks (or opposed Perception checks) would remove Sneak points. In order to keep non-rogues from wanting to use this system on every single turn during combat, in 5E terms I'd rule that attempting to be sneaky takes your action during your turn, and then let the Cunning Action feature allow a rogue to make a stealth check and add sneak points at the start of their turn (and at higher levels, I'd let them get additional sneak points automatically). I'd probably also give rogues a few more options for cashing in sneak points, let them pool back up above 3 sneak points even in combat, not have attacks remove sneak points, etc. Basically part of the incentive for getting rogue levels would be being able to break the sneak points currency system in increasingly ridiculous ways. Note that this would be totally divorced from the cover system - cover would give bonus to stealth checks, but it wouldn't be required to generate sneak points. A rogue can be in melee with something and have two sneak points or whatever - it just means he's being his usual shifty self, constantly ducking around behind enemies while they're distracted by his allies, they only catch glimpses of him out of the corner of their eye, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Ronwayne posted:Your ability to end the game at any moment is balanced by the game's ability to end you at any moment. D&D wizards are objectively the most boring and lame wizards. Also why doesn't D&D have different rules for things during fight mode and story mode yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
I'm glad I didn't read this thread before playing d&d for the first time. Most people in this thread make 5e out to be a horribly balanced & broken game. Maybe I just don't have the required experience with previous versions to understand how horrible 5e is but I haven't heard any complaints from anyone else in my current game about how they feel weaker then the casters. The only issue that was brought up was the fact that all classes are equal in regards to chance to hit with melee and ranged if they are proficient with the weapon in question. based on the posts in this thread I might have not even played the game if I read them before hand. Now I'm 4 sessions in and am trying to get into as many games as my schedule will permit. I play a cleric but I use my long bow more then I cast spells, though I have to admit this might be due to the fact that I managed to start with 20 Dex. Rolled an 18 & elves get +2 to dex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Well, for one, the balance starts to fall apart after a few levels, not immediately, which has been said in this thread repeatedly. Secondly, yes, of course casters don't seem like a big deal when they don't use their spells.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Clinton1011 posted:I'm glad I didn't read this thread before playing d&d for the first time. Most people in this thread make 5e out to be a horribly balanced & broken game. Maybe I just don't have the required experience with previous versions to understand how horrible 5e is but I haven't heard any complaints from anyone else in my current game about how they feel weaker then the casters. The only issue that was brought up was the fact that all classes are equal in regards to chance to hit with melee and ranged if they are proficient with the weapon in question. Caster imbalance also requires your caster to take and use spells that new casters usually wont take. Things like sleep and color spray are fight enders, where as the only first level damage spell that can really end a fight is burning hands (and it requires the mage to be somewhat close to the fight). Caster disparity gets worse at later levels, as once you get 3rd or 4th level spells the game breaking spells become more obvious and start looking like better choices. Finally, this thread is about rules, not about your group. You can play D&D and never really have the issues with it if A) the wizards at your table don't pick spells that instantly end/neuter encounters or take other peoples niches and B) the fighter never gets tired of running up and hitting things with a sword and C) no one has the desire to really examine things like damage output, narrative control, or power disparity inside your group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
So if you play the class you enjoy until you stop enjoying it and don't deliberately gently caress it up for the rest of the table?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Without playing other editions, you can't tell how regressive it is. 5e would have been an awesome game in the early 80's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So stealth rules are hard. They have always been at least a bit poo poo. What would good stealth rules look like in a tactical combat system like D&D's? This is a ridiculously complex question when you sit down to look at it. I still don't have a solution several years after starting. Let's look at the simplest, most traditional method: you try to get a bonus via some form of dice roll (become Hidden/Stealthed), then use your new condition to deliver a special attack (Backstab/Sneak Attack) and lose the condition. That's a D&D-style thing through and through, with AC essentially becoming your stealth-attack-in-the-back static defense (usually with a penalty to the defender or a bonus for the attacker). But it's not a super satisfying abstraction, so in come the opposed checks, where most RPGs poo poo themselves because they're designed for static tasks and not floating pvp resolution. Perception/Notice/See poo poo becomes the new active method of defense against stealth, but the balance between that and allowing the stealth character to be stealthy is basically impossible; either the defender has as good as no chance to spot the incoming attack, or the action is weighed in favor of the stealthy character (you have to spend an action to spot so you lose a turn regardless of success), or stealth becomes impossible because the chances are weighed against you. There's also bullshit like being told to roll perception individually for every single opposing guard, which makes extended stealth basically impossible. All of this is a symptom of trying to design a stealth system on top of something underlying (like D&D's core mechanic of attack VS AC, every monster being statted individually with individual actions, etc) rather than laying out the goals of what the system should do and then accomplishing that. So what do we generally want stealth mechanics to do?
There's all kinds of things you could add to a list like this, but this is a shorthand for designing something quick. So let's address them together within the context of 5e. Let's say there's a Stealthed status players can get. It works essentially in the way we're familiar with; you lose stealth by taking certain actions. Outside of combat, there is no need to roll for a character to achieve stealth. They just prepare for stealth and become stealthed. Similarly, there is no reason to force unalerted or unsuspecting guards in a player's vicinity to ever roll to spot the stealthed character unless the stealthed character takes some kind of risk. If the players are stealthed, they can swim in a moat underneath the guards of a castle and climb up the wall without the guards being allowed to surprise-spot them; if they try to go in through the front door, it's opposed check time. So now our core stealth mechanic isn't "doing a thing and rolling opposed rolls until I inevitably fail", it's "avoid having to roll opposed rolls". Evasion is a huge thematic aspect of stealth, and it's an important thing to design for. Skill checks during stealth can have entirely new failure conditions; instead of just failing the skill check, we apply the notion of failing forward; you succeed and you invoke opposed rolls with passing NPCs (accidentally make a noise, are caught briefly out of position, etc). So now a core feature of stealth isn't just in being stealthy, but in being a professional at your job, which in turn is a big stealth-action trope. In addition, since stealth is easy to achieve, anyone can enter stealth gameplay at zero penalty; it's avoiding the consequences that's hard. For the stealth specialist Rogue, we can create a subset of mechanics on top. Sneak attack mechanics now allow you to attack and dispatch/knock out guards silently without breaking your ongoing stealth status, so long as you're successful; the target is removed quietly. You get Advantage on opposed stealth checks so long as your foe remains unalerted and not suspicious. Little mechanical treats that turn the rogue from the only person who can do the stealthy thing to the master of doing the stealthy thing. The sneak attack bonus can even apply during combat, becoming a tool to let you remain in stealth as well as a straight damage bonus. On top of this it's possible to layer other mechanics. If the group gets discovered, there can be a brief challenge to retain or regain stealthy status; if you do, the location you're stealthing through goes on alert and things get more difficult (possibly rolling skill checks at a disadvantage to see whether someone is alerted by your action, that sort of thing). Equipment like smoke bombs and special Rogue tricks can help with reacquiring stealth for an entire group. So now we have a theoretical game mode where the entire group participates, where evasion is emphasized over confrontation, where failure is a matter of remaining stealthed rather than "you failed roll again", and where the consequences of failure have mitigation possibilities. For combat, things get trickier. Everyone is on alert, looking for attacks from different angles. For this, I'd use the same resolution that combat generally uses, that being skill VS static defense, in this case Stealth VS the highest opposing passive perception. Do this normally at any time with Disadvantage, do it while in cover or in smoke normally, get Advantage if you're a stealthy rogue somehow. Now give the Rogue more options for doing things while stealthed, like using Intimidate (at Advantage) to frighten foes while out of sight, letting you do the Batman thing. Sneak attacking someone to unconsciousness allows you to either hide the body or dispatch it silently, and doesn't break stealth during combat (failing to reveals you as normal). Now the Rogue isn't compressed down to a single trick in a fight, but is given a tool to fight entirely differently from how a Fighter would. What about dealing with stealthed enemies? Obviously, stealth is an advantage you want to strip away, and the benefit of stealth is essentially as good as invulnerability; while you are stealthed, you can't be targeted. Making people lose action after action on trying to spot a foe isn't fun. This is something I don't have an offhand answer for; I've tried things from giving stealthed characters "passive stealth" that spotters roll against to letting attackers make perception checks as part of a different action (disadvantage for splitting their attention), but haven't found anything quite satisfying. I have now put more thought into making stealth gameplay fun than went into 5e. All of it. e: Wow I use semicolons during mechanics chat a lot. Rulebook Heavily fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 16:57
|
|
