|
ReapersTouch posted:I get why this is an issue, but i really dont understand when it would ever be disputed. Are there people out there that really nitpick about this sort of stuff? Let them shield bash, then do whatever. For the record, people will nitpick about this stuff. I guarantee there's been an argument between a player and a DM, where the player just wants to shield bash first and the DM says no. The rules need to be easily interpretable, because every time there's an edge case, there's eventually going to be a DM saying "you can't do that" to a clever plan that'll save everyone if I can just shield bash by itself before attacking, causing a big ol' argument. Both the players and the DM have to be on the same page when it comes to the rules. If they're interpreting rules differently, that's part of where conflicts can come up, and we can't expect that every DM is The Good DM.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
D&D Next: being open to interpenetration does not make something bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I see this as just being pedantic. The intention is do it whenever. And being open to interpenetration does not make something bad. It''s not great or anything and I do prefer being clear, but it's not annoying enough to bother nitpicking like this. Just make a ruling and get on with it. What happens if a ruling gets made that has people feel shafted about the whole situation? Which, as someone who is about to end a pathfinder game as a player, I've experienced a shitload of bad ruling calls that has made things very frustrating. You should design your game to avoid things like this. Its pretty important about creating a positive atmosphere if everyone is on the same page with the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Looks like someone else wanted to play a Warlock in that game I got invited to, so I let them have it since this is like their first game of D&D so I'd feel bad hogging the class. Thanks for all the character build advice though! I was hoping you guys could advise me on making a Monk, as I decided to do that. GM is letting us have 32 points with point buy, so I think that'll soothe the MADness of the class a bit. Which of the subclasses are fun?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:Looks like someone else wanted to play a Warlock in that game I got invited to, so I let them have it since this is like their first game of D&D so I'd feel bad hogging the class. Thanks for all the character build advice though! I was hoping you guys could advise me on making a Monk, as I decided to do that. GM is letting us have 32 points with point buy, so I think that'll soothe the MADness of the class a bit. Which of the subclasses are fun? Open Hand and Sun Soul I hear are quite good. (The fact you are getting 32 point buy means You can pump your Dex and Wis and Con a lot which will make your class much stronger from the get go.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Open Hand and Sun Soul I hear are quite good. (The fact you are getting 32 point buy means You can pump your Dex and Wis and Con a lot which will make your class much stronger from the get go.) Open hand is the best monk subclass but that's not saying much. Sun Soul is trash but if you want to be Naruto or whatever then go for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:TAKING AN ACTION "I'm going to take the attack action!" "Ok, cool. Who are you attacking?" "I'll run over to Big Bad!" "Ok, but you can't reach him. He's 35 feet away, you have 30 feet of movement." "I can't attack anyone so I guess my turn is over."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Open hand is the best monk subclass but that's not saying much. Sun Soul is trash but if you want to be Naruto or whatever then go for it. Pretty sure sun soul is Goku. Naruto basically only had one thing he was really really really good at until He made up with Kurama and skipped straight to 9th level spells. Then he got 6th paths chakra and became a Demigod.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Open hand is the best monk subclass but that's not saying much. Sun Soul is trash but if you want to be Naruto or whatever then go for it. Whats wrong with Sun Soul?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
There's no reason you'd have to declare your action at the start of your turn. It's just, once you declare it, you are then taking it. Once you've resolved it, whatever happens next is after that action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Pleads posted:"I'm going to take the attack action!" If you play on a grid, then yes, exactly this. The information is you need is right there in front of you and it's on you to use it. If you play with the sort of dickhead DM that would pull that poo poo in the THEATER OF THE MIND, remember to ask if stuff is in range before you move towards it, I guess? Or play with someone who doesn't pull petty bullshit on you? Ferrinus posted:There's no reason you'd have to declare your action at the start of your turn. It's just, once you declare it, you are then taking it. Once you've resolved it, whatever happens next is after that action. But you can apparently do the thing that happens next before the action that's before it because STOP NITPICKING AND MAKE A RULING. ( I ruled that the thing that happens next can't happen before the thing that comes before it, but apparently I'm wrong).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:He also kinda writes books that he's very proud of but everything else I've seen leads me to believe they kinda suck. My interpretation after having watched a couple of his videos is that he's just really accepting of anything so long as it has "D&D" stamped on it. He has a video about using 4e mechanics in 5e and he's just sort of unanimously in favor of both systems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:But you can apparently do the thing that happens next before the action that's before it because STOP NITPICKING AND MAKE A RULING. You can shield bash prior to rolling specific attacks once you've committed to attacking, but you flurry of blows after you're done attacking. An "Attack action" is a process, not an instant. There is, to quote myself, a difference between "if you dine"/"when you dine" and "after you dine".
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Open hand is the best monk subclass but that's not saying much. Sun Soul is trash but if you want to be Naruto or whatever then go for it. Sun Soul, Kensei and Long Death are all better than Open Hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Sun Soul, Kensei and Long Death are all better than Open Hand. Oops I forgot about Kensei and I agree with that. Sun soul, though?? Kurieg posted:Pretty sure sun soul is Goku. All anime is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:Oops I forgot about Kensei and I agree with that. Sun soul, though?? It gives you a solid ranged attack option and an AoE, both things monks (and melee martials in general) otherwise don't have access to. It's better than the auto-trip check on FoB and 1/day 3*level hp self-heal Open Hand gets. Long Death has worse level 3 and 6 archetype abilities but their level 11 ability more than makes up for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Pleads posted:"I'm going to take the attack action!" I was looking for the old 1e black and white image showing some dude shooting an arrow, running in, throwing a spear, running in, and then attacking with a sword but I cant remember where it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
I mean the whole crux of this thing is that 'When you take the attack action' isn't a timing declaration. That's the whole problem. Even, "before or after resolving an attack action" would be clearer, though it's got it's own problems. When you take an action doesn't really describe a descrete moment in time. Even 'when you declare' would be clearer since 'declaring' an action is a plain-English description of saying, 'I attack'. Remove verbiage related to 'when you take an attack action' and instead just, you know, let it be a thing a Shield Master can do as a bonus action. I see no reason to tie it to an attack in the first place. It's a clumsy way of trying to make it a Full Attack or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
I feel like if you're playing at a table where you actually have to worry about this bullshit it's time to find another table. This poo poo never loving comes up in any adventure league game I play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
I think Shadow Monk is actually the best monk archetype in the PHB since the 'core' of monk is already pretty good in combat and Shadow monk gets a very good amount of utility outside of it, while Open Hand is all about the combat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:I think Shadow Monk is actually the best monk archetype in the PHB since the 'core' of monk is already pretty good in combat and Shadow monk gets a very good amount of utility outside of it, while Open Hand is all about the combat. This is a perfectly valid position. Even if situational, some spellcasting is superior to no spellcasting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:06
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:I feel like if you're playing at a table where you actually have to worry about this bullshit it's time to find another table. This poo poo never loving comes up in any adventure league game I play. Just because it's not a problem for you, doesn't mean it's never going to be a problem for anyone else The goal is to write rules that are unambiguous. There should be one way to interpret a rule. If the people at the table disagree with The One Way enough that they want to "houserule" it, that's their call, but to write a rule in such a way that there's no common understanding of it, that every time some new person reads it, that they're effectively always houseruling it, that's a Bad Rule.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:I think Shadow Monk is actually the best monk archetype in the PHB since the 'core' of monk is already pretty good in combat and Shadow monk gets a very good amount of utility outside of it, while Open Hand is all about the combat. Conspiratiorist posted:This is a perfectly valid position. Even if situational, some spellcasting is superior to no spellcasting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:I feel like if you're playing at a table where you actually have to worry about this bullshit it's time to find another table. This poo poo never loving comes up in any adventure league game I play. Just about every problem that gets mentioned here will only come up if you're trying to follow the rules, and if you care when you can't do that or when the rules you're following make something stupid happen. If you're prepared to go "eh, do whatever seems OK and keep going", or to sit back while others do that, then yeah, you won't notice. Some people are fine with that. Some people don't like doing that and don't want to play a game where it happens more than a limited number of times, ever. Others, like one of my groups, don't mind doing it, but would prefer it if "whatever seems OK" was then written down so the way it's handled stays consistent. Others, like one of my groups, will get the DM to make a temporary ruling (taking into account things like "this player built their character on the assumption that this thing would work"), and then spend time later on dissecting what went wrong and how it might be sorted out. I guess it's not necessarily easy to understand that some people, including the people I mostly game with, find that part fun and interesting, albeit in a totally different way than playing the game is fun and interesting. Some people are fine with a group that does this as long as they don't have to participate in the discussion about fixing it. All those are fine if they work for you. Personally, I can't just go "eh, do whatever" and keep going in D&D, because I regard D&D as a crunchy game, and I don't like vagueness ("flexibility", to be charitable) and crunch to co-exist in the same game. But isn't Adventurer's League supposed to follow the rules pretty closely so that you can switch between tables without playing what's effectively a different game? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
Yes but maybe I've had the luck of going to three different gaming stores in San Diego that consistently apply the same intuitive understanding of the rules, where no one objects to a sheild bash being used as an independent bonus action since, unlike flurry of blows, it doesn't say it must be taken immediately. Aw gently caress now I got pulled into this bullshit. Anyway, even adventurer's league handbook says DM is final arbiter
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:37
|
|
|
Okay, so even if we all agreed that "intuitively", or "based on designer's intent", that Shield-Shove should be usable as an independent bonus action, should it not have been written that way? Since it wasn't, is it not fair to call it out as a problem? And this isn't me trying to come off as "wow 5e is horribad never loving play it again loser", I just want to come at this from an angle that this is a legitimate point of criticism to begin with, and more broadly, that this isn't the only time that this comes up, and is a reflection of issues with how the rules are written.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
Back in the day, I played AD&D in public groups. I never once encountered a group where everyone had seen the rule about fighters getting one attack/level against creature of 1HD or less, and I never once played in a group where that rule was acknowledged as something that was supposed to happen, not even to the extent of "yes, we houseruled that out". If I brought it up, the response was usually on the line of "You're kidding, that's a real thing? Yeah OK, wow, right in the rulebook, ha. Well, we've never done that and we're not going to start". That doesn't mean that the rule was never there or that nobody ever encountered it. It means that everyone I played in a public game with either failed to notice it existed or handwaved it away as "nah, that's dumb" before I ever showed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:That's not really a very good argument. It's an obscure edge case in an optional section on a feat that maybe 1 person in 20 parties might pick up(has anyone here ever played at a table where someone had shield master? I honestly have no clue who'd pick that one up.) I agree that the game is not simple but this isn't why. I should have talked about level scaling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
Or the encounter building rules. Leaving aside whether or not they reliably produce reasonable fights, those are a long way from simple. e: Specifically, the meaning of the word "threshold" and the "multiply by number of creatures for the XP budget part but not the giving XP to the players part" frequently come up as questions or from people who post "holy poo poo, I've been doing it wrong". Then there's the vague bit where it says not to add the xp of monsters that are "significantly" below the challenge rating of the other monsters unless you think the weak monsters make the encounter "significantly" more difficult. Then compare that last bit to the "flat math" design philosophy, where weak monsters are supposed to remain threatening indefinitely. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Jan 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Back in the day, I played AD&D in public groups. I never once encountered a group where everyone had seen the rule about fighters getting one attack/level against creature of 1HD or less, and I never once played in a group where that rule was acknowledged as something that was supposed to happen, not even to the extent of "yes, we houseruled that out". If I brought it up, the response was usually on the line of "You're kidding, that's a real thing? Yeah OK, wow, right in the rulebook, ha. Well, we've never done that and we're not going to start". Thats what you get for playing with losers that didnt play Pool of Radiance. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
I expanded my thoughts on encounter design into a whole new post: https://songoftheblade.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/encounter-design-have-ways-of-attacking-different-player-defenses/ DalaranJ posted:The fighter post led me to gradenko’s blog, which led me reading about the “orcus” pre4e. This got buried in the rest of the other discussion, but the thing to think about here is more about the Short Rests rather than the "exploits" themselves. The complaint about Encounter powers in 4e was that 5 minutes was not "realistic", that you couldn't expect people to be fighting fit again after taking a breather of that duration (which is wrong, but we knew that already). It was turned into one hour long to appease these narrative complaints, while also creating a way for the devs to say that it's not really an encounter power because you don't get a Short Rest after every fight. I believe the change to remove maneuver dice from all other Fighters was similarly related to trying to distance themselves from 4e. It might have also had to do with Mearls having greater creative control over the project after Monte Cook left, but I'm not sure if the timelines match up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:42
|
|
|
So i have a rogue friend that hit level 2 today and got Cunning Action so he can do Hide,Disengage and Dash as a bonus action now. The description for bonus action says you can use it whenever so long as whatever bonus action you're taking doesn't specify when you can do it. So in this case, he could run in, get his sneak attack bonus from doing melee to an enemy that is distracted (advantage not needed, but achieved, i would say) then use his bonus action to disengage and move away for his full movement speed to safety? Also i understand that you can sneak attack with a ranged weapon provided it has advantage. But would it be reasonable to say "well the enemy is busy fighting my fighter friend, therefore i step to the side to flank/back attack the enemy for advantage from waaaaay back here"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
RE: Fighters, Battlemasters, etc. At the time, Fighters were the sorta "main" class built around Short Rests; very few classes had other abilities tied to them. It was short rests changed to an hour, not battlemaster stuff tied to short rests, that was the change. The reason given was literally that martial players didn't appreciate their abilities enough, so they were nerfed to no longer be usable every fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:49
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:So in this case, he could run in, get his sneak attack bonus from doing melee to an enemy that is distracted (advantage not needed, but achieved, i would say) then use his bonus action to disengage and move away for his full movement speed to safety? That is, if the enemy is 15 feet away, the Rogue can close to melee range, make their (Sneak) attack, activate Disengage as a Bonus Action, then walk back to being 15 feet away without drawing an attack of opportunity. The other thing to remember here is that attacking with your off-hand is a Bonus Action, so you can't do that AND use your Cunning Action to Disengage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:So i have a rogue friend that hit level 2 today and got Cunning Action so he can do Hide,Disengage and Dash as a bonus action now. The description for bonus action says you can use it whenever so long as whatever bonus action you're taking doesn't specify when you can do it. You get Sneak Attack so long as: - either you have Advantage or - the enemy is within 5ft of one of your allies and you do not have Disadvantage. So yeah you can get Sneak Attack from shooting a long way away if the enemy is fighting your buddy. No need to involve the flanking variant rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
oh he isn't duel wielding so that much is fine, just wanted to make sure i had the order of operations right, forgot you could divide up your movement between actions like that as well so there is not another magical 30 feet of movement gained from activation of Disengage for example. What about if he picks Dash though? Since that is techincally 60 feet total.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:55
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:Yes but maybe I've had the luck of going to three different gaming stores in San Diego that consistently apply the same intuitive understanding of the rules, where no one objects to a sheild bash being used as an independent bonus action since, unlike flurry of blows, it doesn't say it must be taken immediately. Aw gently caress now I got pulled into this bullshit. So you just ignore the text that says "If you take the Attack action on your turn", or what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:55
|
|
|
HOOLY BOOLY posted:oh he isn't duel wielding so that much is fine, just wanted to make sure i had the order of operations right, forgot you could divide up your movement between actions like that as well so there is not another magical 30 feet of movement gained from activation of Disengage for example. if you use Dash, then you do get the extra movement, but you'd trigger an AOO when trying to move away from an enemy since you didn't activate Disengage
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:58
|
|
|
Note you can solve all these issues by taking the Mobile feat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:RE: Fighters, Battlemasters, etc. Changing short rests is a very... very tricky proposition, to do no matter what it seems like. If you reduce it back down to a sensible 5 minutes, then it fixes this issue by making the class more viable for combat stuff, which you'd think would be the entire point (  stuff aside)....But in doing so, you unbalance the poo poo outta something like Warlock which can now just go full nova every fight. I think for stuff like this, Stunning Fist etc. which are too powerful to key off the same regen as Fighter abilities, there really needs to be something more like a Medium Rest if they insist on this weird mechanic. Make that the 1 hour thing, and have things like that use that for the recharge rather than calling pushing a dude over equivalent to something like Eyebite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2018 12:15
|
|
