Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[D&D 5E] Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

1568101199

Posts

  • ToxTox I kill threads Punch DimensionRegistered User regular
    I feel like this is one place where 13th Age just has a clear advantage because they took the approach of "gridless map" and made it work super well. Instead of specific ranges they just limit the number of targets you can get within a given range band.

    Wishlists! General | Gaming | Comics | Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
    italianranmaElvenshae
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    I would definitely still use a grid. And possibly add some forced movement effects to monsters and terrain, since that was my favorite aspect of 4E.

    Hexmage-PA on
    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration. By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    MsAnthropyitalianranmaRiemannLivesOats
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration. By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    What sort of things did you change?

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    for me it really depends on if the fight includes interesting or confusing movement effects or terrain features. Like if this fight is supposed to be more than half our session then ill throw it on the grid. Other than that I generally run without one.

    webguy20Smrtnik
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    for me it really depends on if the fight includes interesting or confusing movement effects or terrain features. Like if this fight is supposed to be more than half our session then ill throw it on the grid. Other than that I generally run without one.

    Yea we do this in my group and it works pretty well too.

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
    Smrtnik
  • CarnarvonCarnarvon Registered User regular
    4e was/is easier to run because 4e encounter generation actually functions. 5e is simpler because the tolerances are so open.

    I don't use grids because I don't own any good minis. I use a close/near/far system for ranges, which is easily run and understood by everyone I've played with. If players use AoE abilities, generally the hit half the possible targets unless they go out of their way to round them up, or the monsters are trying to avoid clumping.

    Gridless is much faster when you're used to it, but I understand the wish to have meatier combat.

    SleepitalianranmaRiemannLives
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    So i just read the Adamantine weapons rule in the rulebook. Is it just me or is this super op (if your dm let's you get away with it, particularly on a rogue or a paladin)? Boils down to: adamantine version of a melee weapon or 10 pieces of ammunition costs 500gp more then the normal version, whether the weapon/ammo is made of adamantine or costed in it. Adamantine weapons convert all hits to crits.

    If you can guarantee crits for just 500gp and then dump extra dice in via sneak attacks/spell slots/etc... That seems absurdly powerful to me, no?

    Smrtnik on
    steam_sig.png
  • HellboreHellbore A bad, bad man Registered User regular
    I think that's all hits against objects to crits, but I don't have the book handy

    Moridin889
  • NotoriusBENNotoriusBEN Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    hits against objects.

    adamantine is a material for making siege weapons and such.
    pretty boss when you have the barbarian bust the door with a door breacher and then the dwarf w/shield pushes into the room with the rogue and cleric from behind like a swat breach.

    NotoriusBEN on
    notoriusben_zpsa205e831.png
    Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
    DiannaoChongRainfalljdarksun
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    Don't bother with doors; make your own.

  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration. By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    What sort of things did you change?

    In short, I found myself just making it 4E again. Adding back in small bonuses (in addition to Dis/Advantage), making Inspiration basically just Action Points, trying to make encounter building work, trying to solve the melee dancing problem, etc. After awhile I just gave up and said "nah, I still have enough books to run 4E, I'll just do that."

    It's pretty much the same thing that happened with my 13th Age experience.

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Melee dancing problem?

    BionicPenguin
  • NotoriusBENNotoriusBEN Registered User regular
    im assuming getting into proper flanking position or moving about without provoking opportunity attacks while still getting to the wizard and so the fighters tend to tussle and shuffle about on the board in order to keep enemies from slipping by.

    notoriusben_zpsa205e831.png
    Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Melee dancing problem?

    The way the opportunity attack rules are written, two creatures can pretty much just spin around each other across the battlefield without provoking OAs from each other.

    It's possible the rules have changed since the last time I read them, but I doubt it.

  • FryFry Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Melee dancing problem?

    The way the opportunity attack rules are written, two creatures can pretty much just spin around each other across the battlefield without provoking OAs from each other.

    It's possible the rules have changed since the last time I read them, but I doubt it.

    I don't really see that as a problem, either narratively or mechanically. Narratively, it's more interesting to me if people are moving around rather than standing in one position. Mechanically, that sort of behavior stops as soon as a combatant joins the brawl on either side, so players and DMs alike have an easy remedy for it.

    DiannaoChong
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Me and my friends preferred being able to 'dance', and were kind of bummed 4th didnt do it that way. We talked about it and decided to do it 4th's way. It's just different accounting for board spacing, but dancing allows for more shenanigans, and I'll always vote for shenanigans. You could find a compromise by slowing the pc for originally threatened squares, and count diagonals as actually 1.5 instead of 1 like I suspect most people homebrews anyways?

    It's a to each his own kind of thing I feel.

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Melee dancing problem?

    The way the opportunity attack rules are written, two creatures can pretty much just spin around each other across the battlefield without provoking OAs from each other.

    It's possible the rules have changed since the last time I read them, but I doubt it.

    Oh, I saw that as an improvement. Breaking melee provokes, staying in melee but moving around through it does not. I like the general lack of off turn actions, and lowering the number of things that cause opportunity attacks was a vast improvement in that regard, especially standing not provoking (So you can't just end up ground locked thanks to a battle master fighter). Like opportunity attacks happen if they break through the ranks to the casters in the back, not if they get into mixed line melee with the front lines. Considering everyone has max 1 opportunity attack/reaction I've never had a problem arise due to this. I also like the imagery of the two combatants circling eachother and dueling one another across the battlefield. I mean any other combatants they pass will get swings on them but yeah two combatants can circle eah other all day swinging back and forth on their turns and not each other's turns.

    TurambarFryMoridin88914357TheDrifter
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Melee dancing problem?

    The way the opportunity attack rules are written, two creatures can pretty much just spin around each other across the battlefield without provoking OAs from each other.

    It's possible the rules have changed since the last time I read them, but I doubt it.

    Oh, I saw that as an improvement. Breaking melee provokes, staying in melee but moving around through it does not. I like the general lack of off turn actions, and lowering the number of things that cause opportunity attacks was a vast improvement in that regard, especially standing not provoking (So you can't just end up ground locked thanks to a battle master fighter). Like opportunity attacks happen if they break through the ranks to the casters in the back, not if they get into mixed line melee with the front lines. Considering everyone has max 1 opportunity attack/reaction I've never had a problem arise due to this. I also like the imagery of the two combatants circling eachother and dueling one another across the battlefield. I mean any other combatants they pass will get swings on them but yeah two combatants can circle eah other all day swinging back and forth on their turns and not each other's turns.

    That hasn't been a thing since I think like 3.5 which itself was a massive fuck up from the 3.0 rules since they didn't adjust the trip feats when they made that change. 4e proning was much more about drastically limiting their movement options and possible dead turning them if you could shift away.

    One big thing that 5th does is make it generally hard to fully lock somebody down. In 4e (and 3.x) you could lock a person down by prone-ing them since they couldn't stand up, move and do an important thing. In 5e that is way harder with standing from prone being much more forgiving at just half speed.

    It makes it much harder for fighters to really leverage proper positioning to impact the flow of the battle but that is definitely in the feature/bug continuum for a lot of people.

  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    Xanathars adds a fighter spec that gets opportunity attacks in any movement in range.

    steam_sig.png
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    To me it paints s silly picture of two combatants waltzing around, and for some reason moving 10-20 feet in a circle isn't provoking, but moving 5 feet back is.

    I understand the game mechanics of it and that it isn't a "problem" for most people, but to me it was silly and needed to be fixed.

    Aegeri
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    The one combat issue I have with my group is that the DM has houseruled 5ft steps back into the game, so as a melee character it has become pointless for me to get next to a spell caster beyond wanting to hit them with a weapon. Especially since we aren't playing with feats. I have no ability to prevent them from casting beyond straight up grappling them. Normal rules call for a disengage action which burns up the action part of a turn, so someone can move away safely, but not cast on the same turn.

    webguy20 on
    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
  • HellboreHellbore A bad, bad man Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    To me it paints s silly picture of two combatants waltzing around, and for some reason moving 10-20 feet in a circle isn't provoking, but moving 5 feet back is.

    I understand the game mechanics of it and that it isn't a "problem" for most people, but to me it was silly and needed to be fixed.

    Think of it this way, staying within an enemy's Reach is keeping your guard up and making sure you're protecting yourself. Using Disengage is making sure to stay protected while moving away, which is why it takes an Action. Leaving that range without Disengaging is literally just turning and walking away, leaving yourself open to Opportunity Attacks.

    SteelhawkSmrtnikMoridin88914357
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Note to self: Speedy Monk Mage Slayer shouldn't allow mages to 5ft step unless they don't cast that turn...

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    My players in the store DnD overwhelming wanted the flanking rule. You cannot have the dancing plus that, so AoOs triggering on any movement returned.

    Honestly that just flatly makes the game play better.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    Denada
  • CarnarvonCarnarvon Registered User regular
    I haven't found a flanking rule that I've liked. Handing out +2s brings me back to 3e/4e math failures, but I guess it does make combat faster. Flanking for advantage, imo, ruins the value of a lot of class features.

    5e movement 'dancing' is fine with me, even when I run with grids. I've always thought of AoOs as punishing someone for showing their back. Saying you can move 30ft in a circle or 5ft only without taking an AoO only changes the abstraction of time. "In single combat, how many steps can I take in six seconds without ceding an advantage to my opponent? Five steps or thirty?"

    Funny thing about the prone conversation, I just noticed a few weeks ago. You can shove as part of an attack, knocking people prone. You can then have another monster grapple the prone character. Prone characters can spend half their movement to stand, unless their movement is set to 0, which is a part of being grappled. This character then takes disadvantage to attacks, and everyone has advantage against it. This makes mobs of anything with high attack and athletics SUPER fucking annoying against PCs, seeing as they now have to spend their entire turn just trying to stand up as kobolds poke them to death.

    Fry
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Hellbore wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    To me it paints s silly picture of two combatants waltzing around, and for some reason moving 10-20 feet in a circle isn't provoking, but moving 5 feet back is.

    I understand the game mechanics of it and that it isn't a "problem" for most people, but to me it was silly and needed to be fixed.

    Think of it this way, staying within an enemy's Reach is keeping your guard up and making sure you're protecting yourself. Using Disengage is making sure to stay protected while moving away, which is why it takes an Action. Leaving that range without Disengaging is literally just turning and walking away, leaving yourself open to Opportunity Attacks.

    So why doesn't it take an action to stay protected for 10-20 feet of movement while you're actively engaged with an enemy, in their reach, never leaving an area where you could be struck? Why does the enemy suddenly become paralyzed if you move in a circle instead of a line?

  • italianranmaitalianranma Registered User regular
    I'm not going to lie, it's kinda dumb. But then again I think the whole HP/AC system is dumb. I'm using the L5R beta movement rules with inner formations to represent combat. The L5R range rings are similar to the FFG Star Wars range rings only smaller in scale to support the weapons of the time. For my inner formations you have a front rank and a back rank. The front rank stops an equal number of enemies +1 from getting to the back rank. The back rank can't attack in melee other than by using reach. Flanking costs an extra move but lets you get past the front rank assuming that front rank is occupied (otherwise they just pivot). Additionally I treat walls as obstacles, and obstacles as a terrain feature that you can incorporate into your attacks. For example if the players decide they're going to use the furniture in the room as cover, when the enemies come in to attack they can attempt to leap on top of it for a height advantage.
    The players might then try to knock the furniture over. It takes a lot of adjudicating, but then again I don't see it as being inherently different from what you'd do with threat/advantage with the FFG system, and doling out Advantage/Disadvantage in D&D like it's Halloween candy is part of my DM style. With only two games under my belt using this new system it hasn't caught on yet with my players, so I'm making a diagram to show it to them a little better. I'll post it up here once I'm finished if anyone is curious, and maybe after a few games I'll refine it a bit.

    飛べねぇ豚はただの豚だ。
  • italianranmaitalianranma Registered User regular
    So after gaining some clout at my FLGS from the one-shot I ran a few weeks ago I finally have a face-to-face game that I started with a bunch of strangers. They seem like good people, and we're all getting along pretty well, so I'm pleased as punch. I like to set the tone early in my games and I hope that I'm really transparent with my expectations: I actually have a laminated copy of my house-rules for my players and before I get into the mechanical stuff I just lay out what kind of DM I am and what does and doesn't fly at my table. But even so I know that players don't always absorb things like "You won't be able to defeat every encounter you find and running is (almost) always an option" so I always try to reinforce that with an early combat encounter. I mean, you've got to be realistic about these sorts of things. So I made sure to crank up the body horror a little bit by having the players encounter 3 wererats in the sewer they fell into. The players recognized the tell-tale (heh) signs of the wererats and set up a promising ambush and started hacking away only to see that their weapons 'had no effect' on the rats. Now, I'll take some of the blame for their first round of combat: maybe I wasn't being clear enough that they were immune to their weapons using visuals of the wererats wounds immediately closing up, but one of my players cannily noted that I wasn't writing down any of the damage they were dealing. The second round was clearly their fault: the wizard's plan was to have the fighter and barbarian grapple the wererats while he slowly killed them with cantrips (having blown through all his other spells in the first encounter, standard wizard). The two meat bags weakly objected to this plan but were apparently mollified by some sweet talking; "I think you'd look good as a wererat." When the fighter failed her save against a bite attack, things started to fall into place for them, so on the third round they finally considered retreat. I really had to suppress a wicked smile and some Holkin's level gloating. All according to plan...

    飛べねぇ豚はただの豚だ。
    DenadaSteelhawkwebguy20Elvenshae14357
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Denada wrote: »
    Hellbore wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    To me it paints s silly picture of two combatants waltzing around, and for some reason moving 10-20 feet in a circle isn't provoking, but moving 5 feet back is.

    I understand the game mechanics of it and that it isn't a "problem" for most people, but to me it was silly and needed to be fixed.

    Think of it this way, staying within an enemy's Reach is keeping your guard up and making sure you're protecting yourself. Using Disengage is making sure to stay protected while moving away, which is why it takes an Action. Leaving that range without Disengaging is literally just turning and walking away, leaving yourself open to Opportunity Attacks.

    So why doesn't it take an action to stay protected for 10-20 feet of movement while you're actively engaged with an enemy, in their reach, never leaving an area where you could be struck? Why does the enemy suddenly become paralyzed if you move in a circle instead of a line?

    Because if two combatants are dancing around, they are still square up and facing each other in a fight. One party may be more mobile than the other, but they are still in battle with each other. It's not as if the combatant not moving/not his turn is locked into that facing. If a dancer circles, the other guy is assumed to be turning circles to face him.

    As has been said, Disengage means you make the effort to protect yourself as you GTFO as opposed to turning tail and running.
    Aegeri wrote: »
    My players in the store DnD overwhelming wanted the flanking rule. You cannot have the dancing plus that, so AoOs triggering on any movement returned.

    Honestly that just flatly makes the game play better.

    I don't understand how adding the flanking option now means any movement triggers an AoO? Please explain.

    Steelhawk on
    Moridin889
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    Hellbore wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    To me it paints s silly picture of two combatants waltzing around, and for some reason moving 10-20 feet in a circle isn't provoking, but moving 5 feet back is.

    I understand the game mechanics of it and that it isn't a "problem" for most people, but to me it was silly and needed to be fixed.

    Think of it this way, staying within an enemy's Reach is keeping your guard up and making sure you're protecting yourself. Using Disengage is making sure to stay protected while moving away, which is why it takes an Action. Leaving that range without Disengaging is literally just turning and walking away, leaving yourself open to Opportunity Attacks.

    So why doesn't it take an action to stay protected for 10-20 feet of movement while you're actively engaged with an enemy, in their reach, never leaving an area where you could be struck? Why does the enemy suddenly become paralyzed if you move in a circle instead of a line?

    Because you circling then presumes you are facing them and side stepping, while leaving assumes you turn your back to them. That's why disengage is "move half your speed", because you are walking backwards. What they should have, is a rule that if you disengage and pass another hostile at the 10 or 15 ft mark, that other hostile should get aoo in you.

    steam_sig.png
  • RendRend Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Denada wrote: »
    Hellbore wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    To me it paints s silly picture of two combatants waltzing around, and for some reason moving 10-20 feet in a circle isn't provoking, but moving 5 feet back is.

    I understand the game mechanics of it and that it isn't a "problem" for most people, but to me it was silly and needed to be fixed.

    Think of it this way, staying within an enemy's Reach is keeping your guard up and making sure you're protecting yourself. Using Disengage is making sure to stay protected while moving away, which is why it takes an Action. Leaving that range without Disengaging is literally just turning and walking away, leaving yourself open to Opportunity Attacks.

    So why doesn't it take an action to stay protected for 10-20 feet of movement while you're actively engaged with an enemy, in their reach, never leaving an area where you could be struck? Why does the enemy suddenly become paralyzed if you move in a circle instead of a line?

    The reason is because an attack of opportunity is not the result of the attacking player being paralyzed or not, it's the result of the defending player dropping their guard. You don't need an action to stay protected while adjacent to an enemy because it's assumed that both you are on guard while adjacent to your enemy and also that your enemy will pursue you if you drop your guard to leave their zone of control. Fighters in various combat related sports circle around each other all the time without giving up the sort of opportunity this is intended to represent.

    The CORE reason this is weird for any reason at all is because of the combination of the turn based system and the grid itself. In real life movement does not happen one person at a time, but that is the only way dnd knows how to model it, and so you get situations where a fighter might ask the dungeon master if they can stand in front of the wizard to defend them and then be told "no" because opponents can simply walk around him as he essentially sets the pick, as if he'd be vulnerable to a foul call for moving screen.

    But turn based is what we've got so to model the fact that it's tricky to disengage with an opponent with whom you are actively engaged, you must either halve your movement or suffer an attack. I find that reasonable given the context.

    Rend on
    italianranmaBionicPenguinSmrtnikMoridin889MrGrimoireTofystedeth
  • TurambarTurambar Avocado at law Registered User regular
    Smrtnik wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Hellbore wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    To me it paints s silly picture of two combatants waltzing around, and for some reason moving 10-20 feet in a circle isn't provoking, but moving 5 feet back is.

    I understand the game mechanics of it and that it isn't a "problem" for most people, but to me it was silly and needed to be fixed.

    Think of it this way, staying within an enemy's Reach is keeping your guard up and making sure you're protecting yourself. Using Disengage is making sure to stay protected while moving away, which is why it takes an Action. Leaving that range without Disengaging is literally just turning and walking away, leaving yourself open to Opportunity Attacks.

    So why doesn't it take an action to stay protected for 10-20 feet of movement while you're actively engaged with an enemy, in their reach, never leaving an area where you could be struck? Why does the enemy suddenly become paralyzed if you move in a circle instead of a line?

    Because you circling then presumes you are facing them and side stepping, while leaving assumes you turn your back to them. That's why disengage is "move half your speed", because you are walking backwards. What they should have, is a rule that if you disengage and pass another hostile at the 10 or 15 ft mark, that other hostile should get aoo in you.

    What do you mean by "disengage is move half your speed"?

    Disengage costs your action, so I guess you can't Dash that turn, but otherwise it doesn't affect your speed

    Steam: turamb | Origin: Turamb | 3DS: 3411-1109-4537 | NNID: Turambar
    FryElvenshaeMegaMek
  • italianranmaitalianranma Registered User regular
    I really like this explanation Rend. With any game system it’s too easy to internalize it based on the mechanics. Between turns the player has almost no ability to interact to a changing environment, so the narrative they create for themselves is that they stand still paralyzed by the events unfolding around them. Getting them to stay involved is tough without mechanics like reactions, which are still very limited in the base game. Having good examples like yours to help visualize is essential imo.

    I had the same problem with HP until playing a lot of Shadows of Mordor; when you’re hit and take damage in that game the character blocks the attack but staggers back from the hit. You don’t actually get stabbed or anything until you die: a pretty good way to rationalize HP imo.

    飛べねぇ豚はただの豚だ。
    Smrtnik
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Yessss this is just the kind of inane argument I was looking for!

    So making the effort to protect yourself while leaving an enemy's reach requires a standard action, but making the effort to protect yourself while staying in their reach doesn't require any action at all, even though in the second scenario you could be moving up to twice as much distance as in the first.

    Again I understand the mechanics of Disengage vs just moving around within an enemy's reach. I just don't agree with them. This whole problem (which I recognize is not really a problem for the majority of people) is because 5E had to be all "oh in our new better version of D&D you don't need a grid, even though everything is still designed for one." So now you have a situation where they couldn't say "when you leave a square in the enemy's reach" and instead had to say "when you leave the enemy's reach." This is a small language change, but with pretty significant impacts on gameplay.

    Elvenshae
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    I miss 5 foot steps :(

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    Powerpuppies
  • italianranmaitalianranma Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    Yessss this is just the kind of inane argument I was looking for!

    So making the effort to protect yourself while leaving an enemy's reach requires a standard action, but making the effort to protect yourself while staying in their reach doesn't require any action at all, even though in the second scenario you could be moving up to twice as much distance as in the first.

    Again I understand the mechanics of Disengage vs just moving around within an enemy's reach. I just don't agree with them. This whole problem (which I recognize is not really a problem for the majority of people) is because 5E had to be all "oh in our new better version of D&D you don't need a grid, even though everything is still designed for one." So now you have a situation where they couldn't say "when you leave a square in the enemy's reach" and instead had to say "when you leave the enemy's reach." This is a small language change, but with pretty significant impacts on gameplay.

    Well, I can talk to this a little bit through the lens of Kendo. If you're taking a step backward, then you're not going to be launching an attack at me. Yes, you could still swing, but it's not going to have the same strength because your backwards momentum is working against you. So if you start going backwards, then it's a great time for me to launch an attack of my own while still feeling relatively safe from a counter attack. Careful, gentle movements don't have the same effect as the windows of opportunity you create are simply too small for me to take advantage of.

    飛べねぇ豚はただの豚だ。
    Moridin889
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    Yessss this is just the kind of inane argument I was looking for!

    So making the effort to protect yourself while leaving an enemy's reach requires a standard action, but making the effort to protect yourself while staying in their reach doesn't require any action at all, even though in the second scenario you could be moving up to twice as much distance as in the first.

    Again I understand the mechanics of Disengage vs just moving around within an enemy's reach. I just don't agree with them. This whole problem (which I recognize is not really a problem for the majority of people) is because 5E had to be all "oh in our new better version of D&D you don't need a grid, even though everything is still designed for one." So now you have a situation where they couldn't say "when you leave a square in the enemy's reach" and instead had to say "when you leave the enemy's reach." This is a small language change, but with pretty significant impacts on gameplay.

    Well, I can talk to this a little bit through the lens of Kendo. If you're taking a step backward, then you're not going to be launching an attack at me. Yes, you could still swing, but it's not going to have the same strength because your backwards momentum is working against you. So if you start going backwards, then it's a great time for me to launch an attack of my own while still feeling relatively safe from a counter attack. Careful, gentle movements don't have the same effect as the windows of opportunity you create are simply too small for me to take advantage of.

    But they're not careful, gentle movements. You can run around your opponent at full speed. Back when shifting (or a five foot step) was a thing, sure. That represents the idea if a careful sidestep very well. But 5E doesn't have that.

  • italianranmaitalianranma Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Denada wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Yessss this is just the kind of inane argument I was looking for!

    So making the effort to protect yourself while leaving an enemy's reach requires a standard action, but making the effort to protect yourself while staying in their reach doesn't require any action at all, even though in the second scenario you could be moving up to twice as much distance as in the first.

    Again I understand the mechanics of Disengage vs just moving around within an enemy's reach. I just don't agree with them. This whole problem (which I recognize is not really a problem for the majority of people) is because 5E had to be all "oh in our new better version of D&D you don't need a grid, even though everything is still designed for one." So now you have a situation where they couldn't say "when you leave a square in the enemy's reach" and instead had to say "when you leave the enemy's reach." This is a small language change, but with pretty significant impacts on gameplay.

    Well, I can talk to this a little bit through the lens of Kendo. If you're taking a step backward, then you're not going to be launching an attack at me. Yes, you could still swing, but it's not going to have the same strength because your backwards momentum is working against you. So if you start going backwards, then it's a great time for me to launch an attack of my own while still feeling relatively safe from a counter attack. Careful, gentle movements don't have the same effect as the windows of opportunity you create are simply too small for me to take advantage of.

    But they're not careful, gentle movements. You can run around your opponent at full speed. Back when shifting (or a five foot step) was a thing, sure. That represents the idea if a careful sidestep very well. But 5E doesn't have that.

    This is exactly what I was talking about earlier with game mechanics influencing our narrative rather than the other way around. Don't think of it as a single step but rather a series of steps taking over the course of a turn. Likewise as the attacker I would simply follow you through all those careful steps, not making an attack of opportunity, but still finding a good moment to launch an attack which you would be able to defend yourself from normally: that's why you're taking small steps so that you're never so off balance as to be unable to counter attack. I tried to find a good demonstration of this, but this was the best I could find (just watch for about 10 seconds to see the precision in his movements, no need to watch the full 20m unless you're feeling like taking up the sport). I had to practice these movements for months before actually getting to spar, so you can get a feeling of how important the footwork is in a real fight. In this way the mechanics make sense: you disengage and move back 30', I move 30' and attack. You really need someone else or some terrain feature or obstacle in order to really make use of disengage.

    Now I'll grant you the fact that per the rules you could use a dash action to literally run circles around your opponent and not provoke an AOO, but I'll chalk that up to an inherent design choice so as to keep the rules simple. And really, how often would that situation arise in combat, and more importantly what is the benefit to doing so? I know this goes back to the core disagreement, but it is one of those things that is easy to house rule if it bothers you so much.

    I realize now that 'careful gentle' movements is the wrong description. It should be 'deliberate and precise.' I think that frames better the argument of you keeping your attention on your current opponent and disengaging as a choice instead of running from them and focusing on whatever your next action is.

    italianranma on
    飛べねぇ豚はただの豚だ。
    Smrtnik
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    .
    Denada wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    Yessss this is just the kind of inane argument I was looking for!

    So making the effort to protect yourself while leaving an enemy's reach requires a standard action, but making the effort to protect yourself while staying in their reach doesn't require any action at all, even though in the second scenario you could be moving up to twice as much distance as in the first.

    Again I understand the mechanics of Disengage vs just moving around within an enemy's reach. I just don't agree with them. This whole problem (which I recognize is not really a problem for the majority of people) is because 5E had to be all "oh in our new better version of D&D you don't need a grid, even though everything is still designed for one." So now you have a situation where they couldn't say "when you leave a square in the enemy's reach" and instead had to say "when you leave the enemy's reach." This is a small language change, but with pretty significant impacts on gameplay.

    Well, I can talk to this a little bit through the lens of Kendo. If you're taking a step backward, then you're not going to be launching an attack at me. Yes, you could still swing, but it's not going to have the same strength because your backwards momentum is working against you. So if you start going backwards, then it's a great time for me to launch an attack of my own while still feeling relatively safe from a counter attack. Careful, gentle movements don't have the same effect as the windows of opportunity you create are simply too small for me to take advantage of.

    But they're not careful, gentle movements. You can run around your opponent at full speed. Back when shifting (or a five foot step) was a thing, sure. That represents the idea if a careful sidestep very well. But 5E doesn't have that.

    Hell, you can take the Dash action and sprint in circles around your opponent until you've covered 60 feet of distance without provoking if you want.

    There isn't really a consistent, logical, in-universe explanation that allows that to make sense without an immense amount of reaching. It's purely a gameplay abstraction, chosen because minimizing the mechanical relevance of positioning makes it simpler to run the game without a grid (at the cost of removing even more of combat's tactical interest).

    And then they went and wrote things like the Xanathar's Cavalier and the UA Tunnel Fighting fighting style, which let you make OAs that work in the older style (provoked by moving 5 feet while within reach) and require the more careful tracking of positioning anyway, because design consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

    SmrtnikElvenshae
1568101199
Sign In or Register to comment.