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

italianranma

This might muddy the waters a little, but I think you can have interesting tactical choices of movement and positioning without using a grid. Take a look at how Chris Perkins runs the Acq Inc games: the players say what kind of thing they want to do (swing from chandelier, block adversary's movement, land the triceratops ontotyrannosaur) and CP tells them what kind of skill to roll and the difficulty of their proposed maneuver. What scenarios are you thinking of that can't be (perhaps better) serviced by using range rings or simply loosy-goosy ranges of melee, nearby, and far away? Want to use difficult terrain to slow the enemies advance, just say so and the DM adjudicates. Want to push an enemy into dangerous terrain, a shove action will get you there. Never mind the grid. I'll argue that for most the thrill of precisely lining up a line effect to hit the most enemies or accurately judging the number of squares an enemy can cover and still attack isn't worth the greater enjoyment that player would have by thinking of something cool and being able to execute it on their turn.

It doesn't remove the core argument of the thread which I take as "5E uses vague rules and relies on DM adjudication." I agree that using anything outside of a grid places more burden on the DM, but I'll argue that the strain is rather light and the benefits are disproportionally great.

webguy20

italianranma wrote: »

This might muddy the waters a little, but I think you can have interesting tactical choices of movement and positioning without using a grid. Take a look at how Chris Perkins runs the Acq Inc games: the players say what kind of thing they want to do (swing from chandelier, block adversary's movement, land the triceratops ontotyrannosaur) and CP tells them what kind of skill to roll and the difficulty of their proposed maneuver. What scenarios are you thinking of that can't be (perhaps better) serviced by using range rings or simply loosy-goosy ranges of melee, nearby, and far away? Want to use difficult terrain to slow the enemies advance, just say so and the DM adjudicates. Want to push an enemy into dangerous terrain, a shove action will get you there. Never mind the grid. I'll argue that for most the thrill of precisely lining up a line effect to hit the most enemies or accurately judging the number of squares an enemy can cover and still attack isn't worth the greater enjoyment that player would have by thinking of something cool and being able to execute it on their turn.

It doesn't remove the core argument of the thread which I take as "5E uses vague rules and relies on DM adjudication." I agree that using anything outside of a grid places more burden on the DM, but I'll argue that the strain is rather light and the benefits are disproportionally great.

While I agree with this, it requires a good/great DM and players with some level of imagination to make everything work on the fly. The grid and the rules that support it work despite the skill level of the people playing it. 4e's combat worked well straight out of the box, no matter the level of skill and it let you do cool shit. Theater of the mind takes a lot of work to make it work well, among all the players and DM, especially with a big complicated combat.

This is the same discussion people have all the time though. There are two types of D&D, there is one where a new group cracks open the books for the first time and starts to play the game. then there is another group that has been playing for years over multiple editions with all their own little foibles. D&D is trying to cater to both at the same time in it's rules. I would prefer D&D lay out a tight solid rules set that works explicitly and easily out of the box, but then also have a whole big chapters on role-playing, theater of the mind and ways to grow the table beyond just what the rules say.

4e gave a mostly solid rules set *if bloated by the 3rd players manual/monster manual* but didn't do too much but a blurb about ways to expand the game beyond them.

5e has shrank down the rules set, but in using natural language has left a lot of weird RAW versus RAI issues. I love the stuff like advantage, and not having a ton of + or - modifiers to things, but I wish it was written like 4e with clear terminology.

Rend

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.

The problem is I should be able to say to the DM "if the goblin chooses to retreat from me in order to use his sling safely, I will aggressively advance so as to not give him the chance to do so."
In a narrative game this statement would be a no problem. But in DnD the answer to that question is no, because we model things in discrete chunks. So, no, even though it makes sense for you to be able to aggressively advance on the goblin so as to not give him the chance to use his sling, you may not do so, because on his turn he can move and shoot. (Held actions notwithstanding of course, since you have to give up your turn to do so, and in that case, the same thing happens, just one turn later)

The attack of opportunity is essentially just a concession to that incapability of the system saying "okay yeah you can't just follow him but I'll give you either a free attack or he can't move very far to do his thing so you can easily keep up."

The AoO is not attempting to model how difficult it is to hold your guard, it's attempting to gracefully concede that your character is incapable of advancing at the moment another character retreats, or instantly react to any kind of movement basically. In my opinion it does an exceedingly poor job of making that concession because I find a single attack that may or may not even hit is rarely a threat worth considering in DnD, but, that's neither here nor there.

Fry

webguy20 wrote: »

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.

In 5E as written, it's already mostly pointless to get next to a spellcaster beyond wanting to hit them with a weapon. The penalty for casting in combat is you get disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. That's it - you don't provoke attacks, you don't have a risk of losing your spell. So just choose any spell that doesn't have a ranged attack roll, problem solved.

Sleep

Fry wrote: »

webguy20 wrote: »

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.

In 5E as written, it's already mostly pointless to get next to a spellcaster beyond wanting to hit them with a weapon. The penalty for casting in combat is you get disadvantage on your attack rolls. That's it - you don't provoke attacks, you don't have a risk of losing your spell. So just choose any spell that doesn't have an attack roll, problem solved.

Or use a melee spell.

The caster is often going to try to flee melee so that you don't kill them with physical violence. Especially if they got guys to tie you up in melee.

italianranma

Look man, kill the spellcasters first is, like, rule #2. I didn't make these rules up ya know. I just gotta follow them.

Denada

italianranma wrote: »

This might muddy the waters a little, but I think you can have interesting tactical choices of movement and positioning without using a grid. Take a look at how Chris Perkins runs the Acq Inc games: the players say what kind of thing they want to do (swing from chandelier, block adversary's movement, land the triceratops ontotyrannosaur) and CP tells them what kind of skill to roll and the difficulty of their proposed maneuver. What scenarios are you thinking of that can't be (perhaps better) serviced by using range rings or simply loosy-goosy ranges of melee, nearby, and far away? Want to use difficult terrain to slow the enemies advance, just say so and the DM adjudicates. Want to push an enemy into dangerous terrain, a shove action will get you there. Never mind the grid. I'll argue that for most the thrill of precisely lining up a line effect to hit the most enemies or accurately judging the number of squares an enemy can cover and still attack isn't worth the greater enjoyment that player would have by thinking of something cool and being able to execute it on their turn.

It doesn't remove the core argument of the thread which I take as "5E uses vague rules and relies on DM adjudication." I agree that using anything outside of a grid places more burden on the DM, but I'll argue that the strain is rather light and the benefits are disproportionally great.

I guess my counterpoint to this is that all of those things are still possible when you have a map in front of you. Difficult terrain, terrain maneuvers, improvised actions... all of those things are still just as easy to imagine and adjudicate when there's a map. Plus you have the added benefit of everyone having the same baseline to work from, and if there's difficult terrain (for example) in the room, everyone can remember where it is and use it if they want because it's right there, on the map, where you can see it.

A map doesn't prevent cool stuff. It's not an either/or situation.

Sleep

italianranma wrote: »

Look man, kill the spellcasters first is, like, rule #2. I didn't make these rules up ya know. I just gotta follow them.

hey everyone wants to sac the qb before they ditch the ball, It's why ya gotta give em a set of linemen

italianranma

Denada wrote: »

italianranma wrote: »

This might muddy the waters a little, but I think you can have interesting tactical choices of movement and positioning without using a grid. Take a look at how Chris Perkins runs the Acq Inc games: the players say what kind of thing they want to do (swing from chandelier, block adversary's movement, land the triceratops ontotyrannosaur) and CP tells them what kind of skill to roll and the difficulty of their proposed maneuver. What scenarios are you thinking of that can't be (perhaps better) serviced by using range rings or simply loosy-goosy ranges of melee, nearby, and far away? Want to use difficult terrain to slow the enemies advance, just say so and the DM adjudicates. Want to push an enemy into dangerous terrain, a shove action will get you there. Never mind the grid. I'll argue that for most the thrill of precisely lining up a line effect to hit the most enemies or accurately judging the number of squares an enemy can cover and still attack isn't worth the greater enjoyment that player would have by thinking of something cool and being able to execute it on their turn.

It doesn't remove the core argument of the thread which I take as "5E uses vague rules and relies on DM adjudication." I agree that using anything outside of a grid places more burden on the DM, but I'll argue that the strain is rather light and the benefits are disproportionally great.

I guess my counterpoint to this is that all of those things are still possible when you have a map in front of you. Difficult terrain, terrain maneuvers, improvised actions... all of those things are still just as easy to imagine and adjudicate when there's a map. Plus you have the added benefit of everyone having the same baseline to work from, and if there's difficult terrain (for example) in the room, everyone can remember where it is and use it if they want because it's right there, on the map, where you can see it.

A map doesn't prevent cool stuff. It's not an either/or situation.

Oh yeah, solid agreement with you there. In a perfect world I'd have a really cool 3D map without a grid like the ones Perkins sometimes unveils during the PAX games. My big limiting factor right now is just time and proficiency with making maps and miniatures. But yeah I like using a map for relative positioning, only that when I do I don't use a grid for movement and effects. In that case I just kinda eyeball distances using range rings.

Aegis

Fry wrote: »

webguy20 wrote: »

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.

In 5E as written, it's already mostly pointless to get next to a spellcaster beyond wanting to hit them with a weapon. The penalty for casting in combat is you get disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. That's it - you don't provoke attacks, you don't have a risk of losing your spell. So just choose any spell that doesn't have a ranged attack roll, problem solved.

I don't really see that as pointless though. That enemy just removed your caster's option of eliminating the more dangerous ranged enemies from the fight by forcing it to use melee spells against the creature that moved next to them, which could very well be a tank-focused enemy whose job is to to that and eat damage.

Hell, that's half my job as a Defender: to stand next to the threatening enemies and force them to either take Disadvantage on their rolls against our squishier party members, or force them to target me, the guy with the most HP in the party and higher AC than most anyone else.

webguy20

Aegis wrote: »

Fry wrote: »

webguy20 wrote: »

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.

In 5E as written, it's already mostly pointless to get next to a spellcaster beyond wanting to hit them with a weapon. The penalty for casting in combat is you get disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. That's it - you don't provoke attacks, you don't have a risk of losing your spell. So just choose any spell that doesn't have a ranged attack roll, problem solved.

I don't really see that as pointless though. That enemy just removed your caster's option of eliminating the more dangerous ranged enemies from the fight by forcing it to use melee spells against the creature that moved next to them, which could very well be a tank-focused enemy whose job is to to that and eat damage.

Hell, that's half my job as a Defender: to stand next to the threatening enemies and force them to either take Disadvantage on their rolls against our squishier party members, or force them to target me, the guy with the most HP in the party and higher AC than most anyone else.

This comes back to why I'm bummed we use 5ft step. Caster steps back and casts big AOE spell while my melee guys goes *oh well!*.

Smrtnik

Turambar wrote: »

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

Pretty sure disengage is 15ft move and uses action last i looked at it, and then you can still do your regular move, whereas regular move is 30ft.

Abbalah

Aegis wrote: »

Fry wrote: »

webguy20 wrote: »

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.

In 5E as written, it's already mostly pointless to get next to a spellcaster beyond wanting to hit them with a weapon. The penalty for casting in combat is you get disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. That's it - you don't provoke attacks, you don't have a risk of losing your spell. So just choose any spell that doesn't have a ranged attack roll, problem solved.

I don't really see that as pointless though. That enemy just removed your caster's option of eliminating the more dangerous ranged enemies from the fight by forcing it to use melee spells against the creature that moved next to them, which could very well be a tank-focused enemy whose job is to to that and eat damage.

Hell, that's half my job as a Defender: to stand next to the threatening enemies and force them to either take Disadvantage on their rolls against our squishier party members, or force them to target me, the guy with the most HP in the party and higher AC than most anyone else.

The problem is that it doesn't force them to use melee spells, it just gives them an accuracy penalty if they try to use a spell that makes an attack roll. There are plenty of spells that don't make attack rolls.

A wizard in melee with you can pirouette gently in a circle around you and then drop a fireball all over your squishy backline with no penalty whatsoever unless you've got the Mage Slayer feat.

In most cases getting in melee with a caster mostly only matters as a way to keep them from walking out of a Silence spell you've hopefully also put up.

(And even then unless you've got Sentinel or something similar, they're probably still going to walk out of it and cast their spells, you'll just get a free attack in the process.)

Schadenfreude

Smrtnik wrote: »

Turambar wrote: »

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

Pretty sure disengage is 15ft move and uses action last i looked at it, and then you can still do your regular move, whereas regular move is 30ft.

PHB p192

D i s e n g a g e
If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn’t
provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn.

That's it. No extra movement and no movement penalty.

italianranma

Listen guys, rather than argue about disengage, wouldn't you find it more engaging to help me come up with this new table for my next game? As I said, one of the players contracted Lycanthropy from a wererat, so I need a "Distinctive Rat-like Features You've 'Gained'" chart. So far I've got:

- beady eyes
- slightly enlarged front teeth
- nose lengthens slightly
- ears become larger
- uncontrollable taste for cheese
- squeaks when surprised
- nearly invisible blonde whiskers on your cheeks
- a habit of tucking food in your cheeks
- aversion to bathing

Actually, I can't be the first person whose thought of this, let me check the internet... Well, I'm kinda disappointed I didn't find anything. I'm sure there's a Dragon magazine from the early 90s that has exactly this table in it.

see317

italianranma wrote: »

Listen guys, rather than argue about disengage, wouldn't you find it more engaging to help me come up with this new table for my next game? As I said, one of the players contracted Lycanthropy from a wererat, so I need a "Distinctive Rat-like Features You've 'Gained'" chart. So far I've got:

- beady eyes
- slightly enlarged front teeth
- nose lengthens slightly
- ears become larger
- uncontrollable taste for cheese
- squeaks when surprised
- nearly invisible blonde whiskers on your cheeks
- a habit of tucking food in your cheeks
- aversion to bathing

Actually, I can't be the first person whose thought of this, let me check the internet... Well, I'm kinda disappointed I didn't find anything. I'm sure there's a Dragon magazine from the early 90s that has exactly this table in it.

Finger nail growth, gnarled knuckles, just general rat hands.
Tendency to walk on the balls of the feet.
General rat feet.
Tail maybe? Probably makes wearing normal armor or clothing uncomfortable.
Undeniable urge to cook classic French cuisine.
Front teeth constantly growing, must gnaw on wood to wear them down (really pisses off the inn keepers when you leave teeth marks in the table).
Grooming behavior with other party members.
Subconscious need to raise four turtles as monks.

NotoriusBEN

Introduce a recurring character named Dr. Zalost for your soon to be ratman... might be a bit esoteric to the teenagers nowadays though...

Hexmage-PA

So whenever I get excited about D&D I start thinking way too much about worldbuilding, but this time I'm at least trying to restrain myself a bit.

Here's the gist of the setting I've developed so far:

- Like 4E, the background of the cosmology is largely gods versus primordials, with great elder spirits as the mediators.
- The players start in an impoverished town in the further reaches of a kingdom that was once part of a greater empire. A trade route passes by the region, and a bandit queen's minions have been plaguing it while also leaving the poor town alone. It is an open secret that the local lord has allied with the bandit queen, and although the populace dislikes how the faraway king has neglected their home they are also concerned that turning a blind eye to the bandits attacking the trade route will earn the king's wrath towards them.
- The bandit queen is a warlock, and her patron is a bound primordial. In exchange for the local lord's support her minions also oppose local fey, monstrous humanoids and undead cultists. She secretly wants to overthrow the lord.
- Emphasis on non-standard races as locals.
- PCs may get special temporary powers based on who they ally with (bandit queen, fey, undead cult, etc).

DiannaoChong

italianranma wrote: »

Listen guys, rather than argue about disengage, wouldn't you find it more engaging to help me come up with this new table for my next game? As I said, one of the players contracted Lycanthropy from a wererat, so I need a "Distinctive Rat-like Features You've 'Gained'" chart. So far I've got:

- beady eyes
- slightly enlarged front teeth
- nose lengthens slightly
- ears become larger
- uncontrollable taste for cheese
- squeaks when surprised
- nearly invisible blonde whiskers on your cheeks
- a habit of tucking food in your cheeks
- aversion to bathing

Actually, I can't be the first person whose thought of this, let me check the internet... Well, I'm kinda disappointed I didn't find anything. I'm sure there's a Dragon magazine from the early 90s that has exactly this table in it.

-vision getting worse, so you tend to hug walls to move through areas
-smell differently every time someone sees you!
-Attraction to cheese
-have him get nervous around extermination paraphernalia (rat traps, poison, game traps, cats)
-plague.
-chance to plague objects you touch?

Kadoken

DiannaoChong wrote: »

italianranma wrote: »

Listen guys, rather than argue about disengage, wouldn't you find it more engaging to help me come up with this new table for my next game? As I said, one of the players contracted Lycanthropy from a wererat, so I need a "Distinctive Rat-like Features You've 'Gained'" chart. So far I've got:

- beady eyes
- slightly enlarged front teeth
- nose lengthens slightly
- ears become larger
- uncontrollable taste for cheese
- squeaks when surprised
- nearly invisible blonde whiskers on your cheeks
- a habit of tucking food in your cheeks
- aversion to bathing

Actually, I can't be the first person whose thought of this, let me check the internet... Well, I'm kinda disappointed I didn't find anything. I'm sure there's a Dragon magazine from the early 90s that has exactly this table in it.

-vision getting worse, so you tend to hug walls to move through areas
-smell differently every time someone sees you!
-Attraction to cheese
-have him get nervous around extermination paraphernalia (rat traps, poison, game traps, cats)
-plague.
-chance to plague objects you touch?

Redundant verbage

NotoriusBEN

Kadoken wrote: »

DiannaoChong wrote: »

italianranma wrote: »

Listen guys, rather than argue about disengage, wouldn't you find it more engaging to help me come up with this new table for my next game? As I said, one of the players contracted Lycanthropy from a wererat, so I need a "Distinctive Rat-like Features You've 'Gained'" chart. So far I've got:

- beady eyes
- slightly enlarged front teeth
- nose lengthens slightly
- ears become larger
- uncontrollable taste for cheese
- squeaks when surprised
- nearly invisible blonde whiskers on your cheeks
- a habit of tucking food in your cheeks
- aversion to bathing

Actually, I can't be the first person whose thought of this, let me check the internet... Well, I'm kinda disappointed I didn't find anything. I'm sure there's a Dragon magazine from the early 90s that has exactly this table in it.

-vision getting worse, so you tend to hug walls to move through areas
-smell differently every time someone sees you!
-Attraction to cheese
-have him get nervous around extermination paraphernalia (rat traps, poison, game traps, cats)
-plague.
-chance to plague objects you touch?

Redundant verbage

kill-kill die-die
man-things
yes-yes!
take-steal

just to name a few oldies that are goodies.

Arthil

Steelhawk wrote: »

I just tried watching a video (while loading the washing machine) on the YouTube instead of my usual podcast and was floored by the running time of 4 hours! Wow! What kind of story was this going to be?!

8 minutes in and they were still nattering on about some neon logo they were planning to hang on the wall and how if they got 5000 subs they'd get an 8 foot bear to place on the set...

Oh. I get it now. Thank you podcasts for cutting out that stuff and just giving me the goods.

Pah! *Mashes the Disagree button*

But no seriously as cool as the game itself is, a lot of the heart of the show comes from everyone interacting prior to starting/right after break/at the end. Please don't tell me the podcasts outright remove a lot of in-game OOC banter too?

Aegeri

Steelhawk wrote: »

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.

Because otherwise it's trivially giving anyone or anything advantage. You *must* put that all movement in reach triggers an AoO or the "dancing" aspect means flanking is an automatic advantage every time. You cannot have that and free movement, otherwise flanking just breaks things significantly.

Of course, flanking is still very powerful and is nearly broken as it is, but it's kept at least in check by this. Without it, everything just gets advantage for no consequence/disadvantage all the time. Thus far, all of my players have adjusted pretty well to this rules change and most prefer having flanking (as a mechanic) to not having it. So I just use it.

And I see about 30-40 players every Wednesday on the store DnD day, so it's a pretty good indication of the popularity of it for me.

Fuselage

I still don't prefer flanking, myself. The DMs I play with do, so I use it, but I'm unsure.

Also I read a big ol' thread on how the new class options impact The 5e Meta. They had some insight about min-maxing different class combinations to the limit, but if D&D is only played in groups of 2-10 at a time, what does it matter what is becoming more common outside of your group?

discrider

I'm pretty sure the only way to play is to maximise speed.
Is there anything else that I can tack onto my Aracokran Monk-Swashbuckler with Mobile?

DevoutlyApathetic

Fuselage wrote: »

I still don't prefer flanking, myself. The DMs I play with do, so I use it, but I'm unsure.

Also I read a big ol' thread on how the new class options impact The 5e Meta. They had some insight about min-maxing different class combinations to the limit, but if D&D is only played in groups of 2-10 at a time, what does it matter what is becoming more common outside of your group?

Because some of those 2-10 folks are reading the internet and it impacts their thinking?

Like, I can reference Pun-Pun but I seriously doubt anybody here was one of the 2-10 folks who actually started that.

Yes, Pun-Pun was theoretical and likely did not come out of actual table play.

Steelhawk

Arthil wrote: »

Steelhawk wrote: »

I just tried watching a video (while loading the washing machine) on the YouTube instead of my usual podcast and was floored by the running time of 4 hours! Wow! What kind of story was this going to be?!

8 minutes in and they were still nattering on about some neon logo they were planning to hang on the wall and how if they got 5000 subs they'd get an 8 foot bear to place on the set...

Oh. I get it now. Thank you podcasts for cutting out that stuff and just giving me the goods.

Pah! *Mashes the Disagree button*

But no seriously as cool as the game itself is, a lot of the heart of the show comes from everyone interacting prior to starting/right after break/at the end. Please don't tell me the podcasts outright remove a lot of in-game OOC banter too?

I'm not 100% what they've cut, but the podcasts start with an short ad, a theme song, and then usually Matt's recap and right into the game. If there is any banter during the breaks those are cut entirely and very rarely is there any after the game stuff. I think, 16 episodes in, the only time was when Pike's player left to do a TV show and they said goodbye.

I'm listening the ep17 now. The podcast has a runtime of 3:02 and the youtube video has a runtime of 4:05

NotoriusBEN

a lot of the earlier videos have like 30minute breaks for restroom, food refills, and stretching and is bascially Geek and Sundry's commercial block for talking about new shows (at the time) and lots and lots and lots of zelda chiptunes.

There might also be Crit'mases in there now which also eat up a ton of video time.

Also, looking at the first episodes compared to episode 100, holy cow, was the set and production a shitshow back then. glad they got it sorted by about episode 20 or so.

Steelhawk

Aegeri wrote: »

Steelhawk wrote: »

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.

Because otherwise it's trivially giving anyone or anything advantage. You *must* put that all movement in reach triggers an AoO or the "dancing" aspect means flanking is an automatic advantage every time. You cannot have that and free movement, otherwise flanking just breaks things significantly.

Of course, flanking is still very powerful and is nearly broken as it is, but it's kept at least in check by this. Without it, everything just gets advantage for no consequence/disadvantage all the time. Thus far, all of my players have adjusted pretty well to this rules change and most prefer having flanking (as a mechanic) to not having it. So I just use it.

And I see about 30-40 players every Wednesday on the store DnD day, so it's a pretty good indication of the popularity of it for me.

OH. Because gaining Advantage on Flanking is too powerful (which I agree with, and am glad its an "optional" rule), you've decided to nerf it a little by calling for AoO when someone tries.

But dancing itself shouldn't trigger advantage. You'd still need two attackers sandwiching their opponent. One attacker just dancing around should not trigger advantage from flanking.

Aegis

I'd imagine that the Rogue would be marrying himself to the hip of wherever the party's tank is going, thus generating flanking Advantage constantly.

Abbalah

Steelhawk wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Steelhawk wrote: »

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.

Because otherwise it's trivially giving anyone or anything advantage. You *must* put that all movement in reach triggers an AoO or the "dancing" aspect means flanking is an automatic advantage every time. You cannot have that and free movement, otherwise flanking just breaks things significantly.

Of course, flanking is still very powerful and is nearly broken as it is, but it's kept at least in check by this. Without it, everything just gets advantage for no consequence/disadvantage all the time. Thus far, all of my players have adjusted pretty well to this rules change and most prefer having flanking (as a mechanic) to not having it. So I just use it.

And I see about 30-40 players every Wednesday on the store DnD day, so it's a pretty good indication of the popularity of it for me.

OH. Because gaining Advantage on Flanking is too powerful (which I agree with, and am glad its an "optional" rule), you've decided to nerf it a little by calling for AoO when someone tries.

But dancing itself shouldn't trigger advantage. You'd still need two attackers sandwiching their opponent. One attacker just dancing around should not trigger advantage from flanking.

The point is that any two attackers could trivially get a flanking position by rotating around the enemy to be on opposite sides because the rotation doesn't provoke, whereas provoking an OA on any movement within reach makes it require some effort to maneuver into a flanking position without eating OAs in the process.

Steelhawk

But gaining an AoO on a foe that you are already engaged with doesn't make any sense to me. And if his buddy comes up behind you and now you've got two opponents spinning circles around you...well, that's a tough spot to be in and you're likely fucked.

Or, you could just not use the optional Flanking rule because its too powerful in the first place.

EDIT: That was not intended to be a snarky response. The designers understood that gaining advantage from flanking was easy to do and very powerful and decided, from the outset, not to make it a standard rule.

DevoutlyApathetic

Steelhawk wrote: »

But gaining an AoO on a foe that you are already engaged with doesn't make any sense to me. And if his buddy comes up behind you and now you've got two opponents spinning circles around you...well, that's a tough spot to be in and you're likely fucked.

Or, you could just not use the optional Flanking rule because its too powerful in the first place.

EDIT: That was not intended to be a snarky response. The designers understood that gaining advantage from flanking was easy to do and very powerful and decided, from the outset, not to make it a standard rule.

It's an abstraction and at this point you've got two scenarios and having trouble abstracting in a way that both result in outcomes that feel appropriate to you.

One on one circling is a thing that happens in fights without a big drop in guard. Two on one in any fight is almost always a completely bad day for the one, in large part because we can only focus our attention in one direction at once.

Having to just pick which of those things you'd like to be better represented in the game is just a thing without a real right or wrong answer.

discrider

Steelhawk wrote: »

But gaining an AoO on a foe that you are already engaged with doesn't make any sense to me. And if his buddy comes up behind you and now you've got two opponents spinning circles around you...well, that's a tough spot to be in and you're likely fucked.

Or, you could just not use the optional Flanking rule because its too powerful in the first place.

EDIT: That was not intended to be a snarky response. The designers understood that gaining advantage from flanking was easy to do and very powerful and decided, from the outset, not to make it a standard rule.

This rather misses the Dragons in D&D.
Two people fighting a large monster really shouldn't be able to run rings around it to get flanking.
Larger creatures should be perfectly able to fend off multiple smaller creatures at once.
That's what arms/legs/wings/tails would be used for; knocking the smaller creatures back around front side where you can see them.

So if you're going to allow flanking and running circles, there really has to be some mechanism to prevent solo monsters from being over-run from the get-go.
Which should also have been placed with Flanking in that optional rule box.

That Opportunity attack rule seemed good.
Perhaps even have it reduce the speed of the circler to zero, or allow the defender to move without provoking reactions to another point beside the attacker, on a hit.
Something to kill the maneuver as well as damage the PC

Sleep

Hey, where can I find the optional flanking rules again?

edit Nevermind found them

Steelhawk

discrider wrote: »

This rather misses the Dragons in D&D.
Two people fighting a large monster really shouldn't be able to run rings around it to get flanking.
Larger creatures should be perfectly able to fend off multiple smaller creatures at once.
That's what arms/legs/wings/tails would be used for; knocking the smaller creatures back around front side where you can see them.

I think that's what common abilities like multi-attack are for. Lash out an one opponent and then another. Or double up on one and take it out if possible.

Dragons and other marquee creatures also have Legendary and Lair actions to help with gangs of roving murderhobos. I don't have the MM open, so I don't know the exact wordings but Tail Strike and Wing Buffet effect everyone in a radius, yes? Beholder eyestocks can fire everywhere, etc.

Steelhawk

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

Steelhawk wrote: »

But gaining an AoO on a foe that you are already engaged with doesn't make any sense to me. And if his buddy comes up behind you and now you've got two opponents spinning circles around you...well, that's a tough spot to be in and you're likely fucked.

Or, you could just not use the optional Flanking rule because its too powerful in the first place.

EDIT: That was not intended to be a snarky response. The designers understood that gaining advantage from flanking was easy to do and very powerful and decided, from the outset, not to make it a standard rule.

It's an abstraction and at this point you've got two scenarios and having trouble abstracting in a way that both result in outcomes that feel appropriate to you.

One on one circling is a thing that happens in fights without a big drop in guard. Two on one in any fight is almost always a completely bad day for the one, in large part because we can only focus our attention in one direction at once.

Having to just pick which of those things you'd like to be better represented in the game is just a thing without a real right or wrong answer.

Yes, agreed. And I've chosen not to use the overpowered (IMO) flanking for advantage optional rule and not to hand out AoO's all willy-nilly.

iguanacus

I'm playing in 2 games at the moment and I by far prefer the game without flanking. In the game with flanking I as a PAW & GWM battle master can pump out an insane amount of damage in a given turn. But the Mastermind rogue finds his class feature of ranged help bonus action almost completely unnecessary. I'm sure it's actually impacting his enjoyment and as he's a new player I don't want that.

Amaryl

I think the combat system is such an abstraction already, that I flanking just muddles things up more.

One of the things that I personally Love about 5e, is the removal of most situational combat bonuses, its just advantage or disadvantage. Sure, there's a whole world of text about when to add proficiency modifiers and what not. But in general in combat its just you have advantage.

That so much less to keep track off, so much less to miss or get wrong. I feel like that's the most elegant design part of 5e. (sure you still have all the legacy stuff like stats that go up to 20, but only give a 10 boost differential, and proficiency is a messy system to begin with.. and then there's spell levels that don't equate with character levels, but that's dnd.)

And I find it interesting that some of you would add more small incidental bonuses to the game back.

Sleep

Yeah flanking is a thing i've just never felt a need to throw into this combat system. Like when i was first reading it, I was glad the optional rule was there, but I decided to just run the system standard to start out, and we never really missed flanking in this edition.