|
It's still no better than advantage for 'doubling your chances.'
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
moths posted:It's still no better than advantage for 'doubling your chances.' Unless they already have advantage it which case your odds are even higher. Pretty much I see it this way. Rogue: I missed with my first attack so I will attack a 2nd time to try and get my sneak attack off. Rogue: I hit with my first attack so I will use cunning action to get out of combat. If it hits you move out of range if it misses take another shot at getting that bonus damage. MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
So you're rolling 4D20 for the possible payoff of one sneak attack hit. Which is pure boringdamage anyway and not something worth caring about. e: The rule also sports some of the best Mearls-speak "natural language" skirting around the word "flanking" that I've seen so far. It's like a game of loving Taboo with these people. moths fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Why even skirt around flanking? Wasn't that term in 3.X too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Because you need additional rules for it to exist in theatre of the mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
It was, and it makes me wonder if their baseline comprehension of 3.x was as flawed as their Cliffs Notes understanding of 4e. e: It says you can sneak attack if you have advantage. And also if you don't have advantage - but only if an enemy of your enemy is within 5 feet of your enemy, and then only if that enemy of your enemy is not incapacitated while you don't have disadvantage. 
moths fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Honestly they probably just ditched Flanking as a term because then it'd have to do something like grant Advantage and hey whoa now that's too strong & easy to set up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:Why even skirt around flanking? Wasn't that term in 3.X too? Allstone posted:Because you need additional rules for it to exist in theatre of the mind. More or less. 3.5e Rules Compendium, p. 56 posted:How We Learned to Flank
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Allstone posted:Because you need additional rules for it to exist in theatre of the mind. Right. If you're playing TOTM, it's (relatively) easy to say "the Fighter is adjacent to this target (and the Fighter is conscious), therefore I can Sneak Attack". It's not as easy to say that you're "flanking" the target. Generic Octopus posted:Honestly they probably just ditched Flanking as a term because then it'd have to do something like grant Advantage and hey whoa now that's too strong & easy to set up. But Flanking does exist in 5E as a DMG optional rule, and it does grant Advantage if you're on opposite sides of a target. It's just that you can't use Flanking as a standard rule if you're going to claim that you don't need a grid for your game. Hell, Sneak Attack has two triggering clauses "you have Advantage on the attack roll" and "a conscious ally is adjacent to the target" specifically so that it'll work without Flanking, even if with Flanking, you really only need the first clause. There's also something to be said here about how 4E's Marking gets called out as a disassociated mechanic, but Sneak Attacks are not, despite them both working off the same principle that the character can get their sneak/opportunity attack off because the target is being distracted. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:But Flanking does exist in 5E as a DMG optional rule This boggles me. Like I legit don't get it. You don't even need a grid, it can just be worded much the same way that Sneak Attack clause is for totm. I only have a PHB since I've never had occasion to dm 5e. Why is a combat rule like that optional and also squirreled away in a completely different book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Why is a combat rule like that optional and also squirreled away in a completely different book. Rulings, not rules!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:This boggles me. Like I legit don't get it. You don't even need a grid, it can just be worded much the same way that Sneak Attack clause is for totm. Because flanking was in 3.x (the only real version of D&D) and therefore has to be included in Next. The problem with flanking is that it lets fighters do a thing without asking first, which is a problem that clearly needed to be solved. Hiding the rule away in the DMG is a fairly good solution (I mean, a new player won't be able to find it there easily) but I'm impressed with the absolute design elegance of making it an optional part of an optional rule. Truly, the power is back in the hands of the
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
I half expected them to describe flanking in spell-like terms. "Flanking functions the same as if the target were suffering from the effects of the Bane spell" or some poo poo. Fake edit: no that phrasing isn't nearly confusing enough. Needs more obtuse directions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:I half expected them to describe flanking in spell-like terms. "Flanking functions the same as if the target were suffering from the Bane spell" or some poo poo. No no no! Then the fighter, who is a martial and mundane character, would be creating a spell like effect without magic, which counts as either a dissociated mechanic or stupid anime bullshit. I can never remember which, but those things are both very very bad just like fighters getting to do things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
OH GOD you're right. We really dodged a bullet there!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:OH GOD you're right. We really dodged a bullet there! This worked way better before you ninja edited "nearly" to "really". Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:This boggles me. Like I legit don't get it. You don't even need a grid, it can just be worded much the same way that Sneak Attack clause is for totm. Because you can't claim that the game doesn't need a grid if you also put in a standard rule that's begging for a grid to be resolved cleanly* * setting aside all the other rules/spells/abilities that are begging for a grid to be resolved cleanly
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Hell, Sneak Attack has two triggering clauses "you have Advantage on the attack roll" and "a conscious ally is adjacent to the target" specifically so that it'll work without Flanking, even if with Flanking, you really only need the first clause. The problem here is that getting Sneak Attack from Advantage is way better than getting it from "the fighter is standing where I need him to" because Advantage also increases your odds of hitting and therefore doing damage. And with stealth/surprise being sort of... hosed... It's Up To The DM™ if you can get Advantage that way. Otherwise -- you guessed it -- it's pretty much down to spells, like Faerie Fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I can see some benefits in pushing for this, but I'm not sure it's worth it since as soon as centipedes are currency you can't just pull them out of your component pouch any more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:The problem here is that getting Sneak Attack from Advantage is way better than getting it from "the fighter is standing where I need him to" because Advantage also increases your odds of hitting and therefore doing damage. Flanking has always made it easier to hit in earlier additions that used it and it was never a problem then. I know a +2 vs a +5 is a bit different but still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
The absence of flanking isn't actually due to TotM, but rather the obtuse and may as well not exist OA system. Flanking isn't just easy in 5e, it may as well be automatic, since there's absolutely nothing stopping you from entering an enemy's space and then just running around them as much as you so please. Because flanking is essentially the immediate state of affairs at all times, it was decided not to reward it. But then of course they needed to add something in for rogues, and they don't have a "flanking" mechanic... "But Cirno, why is it written in the most loving awful way possible?" NATURAL LANGUAGE! 5e is what happens when you're allergic to actually explaining game rules. See also: stealth mechanics that are so confusing and non-existent that Mearls ended up claiming he made them lovely on purpose so DMs would have to decide things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 09:50
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:Flanking has always made it easier to hit in earlier additions that used it and it was never a problem then. I know a +2 vs a +5 is a bit different but still. Yeah that's nice and all, except it doesn't in 5e, unless you're using the optional grid rules from the DMG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
So is there any reason for a rogue to enter melee? From what I can see they're just as good, if not better at ranged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
djw175 posted:So is there any reason for a rogue to enter melee? From what I can see they're just as good, if not better at ranged. Okay, so a Rogue needs a weapon to be Light so he can dual-wield it, Finesse so he can use his DEX modifier with it, and Simple so he has proficiency with it. That pretty much leaves us with just a dagger. 1d4+5 damage on the main-hand and 1d4 damage on the off-hand will average to 10 damage, but requires that the Rogue always use his Bonus Action for the off-hand attack or else it's just 7.5 damage from the main-hand and the Rogue doesn't have access to the Two Weapon Fighting Fighting Style to allow the off-hand attack to gain the DEX modifier damage bonus 1d8+5 damage from a Light Crossbow will average to 9.5 damage, and consumes just the Normal Action, and doesn't require access to the Crossbow Expert feat since a Rogue doesn't gain extra attacks, and lets him stay at range So mostly no, being ranged is way better. Melee would only pull ahead if the Rogue could get the Dual Wielder feat so he could ignore the Light requirement and use dual 1d8 Finesse Rapiers I thought this was funny: quote:John Proudfoot @GX_Sigma - Sep 17 2014 quote:Matt Petruzzelli @mpetruzz - Oct 15 2014
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
I see the Next development team is a well-oiled machine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
I'd be impressed if you could fire a crossbow, reload a crossbow, and fire a crossbow again within 6 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I'd be impressed if you could fire a crossbow, reload a crossbow, and fire a crossbow again within 6 seconds. Yep, it seems like it would take a extraordinary amount of skill to do that. That's why it's a feat. On the other hand, here's a "speed comparison" of a longbow and a crossbow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs The longbowman's firing about once ever 3-4 seconds, the crossbowman about every 6-7 seconds. They both look like they're taking a kinda leisurely approach though. I can't find any crossbow vids where the dude's going for speed, but do you really have trouble imagining a fantasy hero going twice as fast as that guy? As far as bows and speed go though... here's a bowman shooting 12 arrows at moving targets in 17 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&x-yt-ts=1421782837&v=sLFqZSWjbZg&x-yt-cl=84359240#t=111. He hits with every one. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I'd be impressed if you could fire a crossbow, reload a crossbow, and fire a crossbow again within 6 seconds. That's why they're heroes. Or firing two bolts at once like every fantasy bowman ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I'd be impressed if you could fire a crossbow, reload a crossbow, and fire a crossbow again within 6 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yep, it seems like it would take a extraordinary amount of skill to do that. That's why it's a feat. Yeah, and Lars Anderson can shoot off ten arrows in 5 seconds, and hit three moving targets in about a second. Turns out modern people aren't very good at archery.  Obviously this means archers should get a dozen attacks per round. For realism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Yeah, and Lars Anderson can shoot off ten arrows in 5 seconds, and hit three moving targets in about a second. Turns out modern people aren't very good at archery. That's the dude I was looking for. I forgot his name.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The absence of flanking isn't actually due to TotM, but rather the obtuse and may as well not exist OA system. Flanking isn't just easy in 5e, it may as well be automatic, since there's absolutely nothing stopping you from entering an enemy's space and then just running around them as much as you so please. Because flanking is essentially the immediate state of affairs at all times, it was decided not to reward it. But then of course they needed to add something in for rogues, and they don't have a "flanking" mechanic... To add to this, wouldn't low level swarming enemies (goblins, etc) be flanking against adventurers almost all the time since it's pretty much automatic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:To add to this, wouldn't low level swarming enemies (goblins, etc) be flanking against adventurers almost all the time since it's pretty much automatic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Allstone posted:I'd be impressed if you could shoot fire out your arsehole, but they're both feats I wonder why one of these is allowed and one of them is considered silly. I must have missed that. Is the arse hole based fire magic next to the fetus magic in the PHB?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:I must have missed that. Is the arse hole based fire magic next to the fetus magic in the PHB? PHB page 168, Magic Initiate. Actually, a Dragonborn Sorceror that fights with magical farts sounds like a workable character concept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Pack Tactics is silly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
goatface posted:Pack Tactics is silly. I'm flat out ignoring it for Kobolds in Ep1 of HotDQ. It's a crazy hard episode for level 1 characters anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
I think if you're using them as the mooks supporting a mid-level enemy leader, it's ok. Chaff that can be evaporated by the PCs, but that can still provide a meaningful distraction in chip damage if they're not dealt with. As things to face a level 1 party with, it's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
i like how they never solved the problem of the value of flanking and positioning granting advantage and just threw it into the DMG as an optional rule, or told the DM to adjudicate it. good game design
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Payndz posted:Kobolds automatically get +5 to hit because reasons, and on top of that they're pretty much guaranteed to get Advantage thanks to Pack Tactics (ie, flanking). So you end up with a low-level trash monster that effectively gets +9 to hit if there's more than one attacking. Or you could have just stripped out their normal attack bonus, and forced them to rely on numbers and Advantage to hit things. It'd almost be... thematically appropriate. Nevermind, guess we can't have that. Tunicate posted:Yeah, and Lars Anderson can shoot off ten arrows in 5 seconds, and hit three moving targets in about a second. Turns out modern people aren't very good at archery. I like how they gloss over his rather poor accuracy when firing that fast against a target that close. Not to mention the draw on that bow is pretty much guaranteed to be below standard for a war bow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:51
|
|