Rules questions and clarifications.   Posted by Ashwolf.Group: 0
Ashwolf
 GM, 124 posts
Mon 11 May 2015
at 03:49
Re: Hiding
In reply to Korben var'Gedrick (msg # 12):

I did some reading on reach weapons last night, and came to the conclusion that you can attack through an ally's space with one.

For ranged attacks into melee the rules are not clear. The options listed in the rules are:
  1. No penalty (because it's not mentioned)
  2. The target has 1/2 cover (+2 AC), or 3/4 cover (+5 AC)
Both of these rub me up the wrong way - firing a missile weapon into a melee is hugely dangerous for your allies, even if you are doing it from one side and less likely to hit a friend. Maybe I should just get over than and run with it though :)

How about we go with the following:
  1. Shooting into a melee from the side (both targets are visible to you) gives the target 1/2 cover.
  2. Shooting into melee past a friend (you are behind them) gives the target 3/4 cover.
  3. There is no chance of hitting a friend, unless you roll a 1 (and let's make that an auto-hit in both these cases) and are in a situation where the target has cover from a friendly  creature.

Carrog Shieldsplitter
 player, 47 posts
Mon 11 May 2015
at 10:44
Re: Hiding
to be fair, targets engaged in melee are only capable of giving 1/2 cover according to the PHB. examples of 3/4 cover are arrow slits or a portcullis, whereas 1/2 cover specifically mentions characters in combat. the only case i could see as logical given the rules within the PHB are when the target is of small size, but personally i think that starts getting into fairly fiddly territory. easy to adjudicate when we're all sitting at a table and can move around a battlegrid and see character and enemy movement in real time, harder when we're working with text and image.

i also personally always balk at crit fumble rules, especially when it only affects some of the players based on how we've all specialized (although i suppose us melee folks are bound to be a bit more terrified of our allies as well). in third edition, having the ability to injure a foe in combat was balanced by the ability to also make a "safe shot" at a penalty or take a feat eliminating the possibility. this meant the player could make a strategic choice.

having a 5% chance to injure an ally with no way to mitigate that bugs me. if that's what everyone wants to go with, that's fine and can be planned around, but it seems a bit unfair to the players who chose to make range-focused characters without knowing this was how things would be adjudicated.



i understand that the proposed rules are a step towards accuracy and a certain kind of viscerally exciting combat. in the real world, fights are chaotic. most actual casualties in the real world are from friendly fire, and that's in modern combat. i'm sure it was equally or even more likely in medieval-style combat, and melee was just as likely to result in such injuries, but i think D&D is not capable of balancing such realism in a way that also leaves a lot of room for fun. GURPS does a great job of simulationist RP but not a great job of fun RP.

juts my $0.02, i'll abide happily by whatever the group thinks on this one. Crag just might start wearing a shield on his back. ;O)
Tara Chartagnion
 player, 65 posts
 Holy Knight, Diplomat,
 Sentinel and Pious Healer
Mon 11 May 2015
at 11:16
Re: Hiding
In reply to Carrog Shieldsplitter (msg # 14):

I agree with Crag that we should not run into the danger of favouring realism instead of fun. If a simple sword blow hit a friend and not a foe due to rolled 1, it wouldn't do much harm. But what about a high-level ranged spell? Or a hit by a vorpal sword +3? As the chance is a flat 5% irregardless of the experience and level of the characters, things could soon get very deadly (if the party does want to use all of the available attack options - e.g. deadly targeted spells and weapons also when allies are around).

That said, I'll go with the majority. (As Tara is primarily a melee fighter, she will be less effected by the rulings as a caster or a ranged fighter.)
Korben var'Gedrick
 player, 40 posts
 Hill Dwarf
 Life Cleric of Ulaa
Mon 11 May 2015
at 11:54
Re: Ranged attacks into melee
The thought of hitting a friend definitely plays into it - Guiding Bolt is a 1st lvl spell that does 4d6 and gives advantage to the next attack against that creature. Using a spell slot; suffering a decreased chance to hit; plus the possibility of taking an ally out of the fight - makes this much less of an option.

EDIT - to elaborate: Because of this, it may mean that once big bads and solo monsters are engaged in melee, spell casters will be encouraged to avoid attack roll spells all together, defaulting to buffs and spells that require a save only. This includes cantrips (which scale with level - unlike ranged weapon attacks which do not). If this is seen as an acceptable consequence, then so be it.

As a Cleric, my character is not very vested in the outcome of this discussion - but as a Player, I am not sure that's an outcome I'd prefer. Though, to be honest, I haven't really looked at the ratio of attack roll spells to save spells.

Also, be aware that this is coming from a die hard fan of RuneQuest 3rd ed, which has built in crit fumble rules. Combat can be very swingy.

This message was last edited by the player at 12:42, Mon 11 May 2015.

Carrog Shieldsplitter
 player, 49 posts
Mon 11 May 2015
at 12:57
Re: Ranged attacks into melee
in general there are more attack roll spells in this edition than in previous, even fr dine casters. it's designed to make players feel like they are actively engaging fights, while still providing options for people like my best friend, a fellow who simply has hideous dice luck and botches more often than he hits, something of a middle ground between very few attack roll spells in 3.X and only attacks rolls in 4e.
Fiona Quickseed
 player, 21 posts
 Lightfoot Halfling of the
 Laughing Carp Caravan
Mon 11 May 2015
at 13:29
Re: Hiding
Ashwolf:
Hi folks,

I'm noticing that the rogue ability to hide with a bonus action is getting used a bit.

In order to hide, there must be something to hide behind. You cannot hide in a corridor that has nothing in it (even in dim light). Halflings can hide behind people, and some elves can hide in forests while partially obscured (like by the leaves of a bush), but in both cases the opponent still knows you are there somewhere if they have already seen you.

Have a read of this link, which has some discussion on this: http://community.wizards.com/c...326#comment-50883326

The executive summary is that after you attack once in a battle your opponents will know where you are, even if they cannot see you. And for them not to see you, you have to be behind something. If you are at range and out of line of sight, you can move, fire and move back and remain hidden, but your opponent will definitely know which direction they were shot from!


Just getting caught up. So my bonus action to hide and my halfling ability to hide behind my companions will therefore NOT be granting me advantage/sneak attack, correct? This is a fair ruling in my mind, though my initial reading of it was the opposite interpretation.  It seemed like something left over from 4e/ World of Warcraft-esque to allow for rogues to always hit with their sneak attack.
Korben var'Gedrick
 player, 43 posts
 Hill Dwarf
 Life Cleric of Ulaa
Mon 11 May 2015
at 14:01
Re: Hiding
In reply to Fiona Quickseed (msg # 18):

Remember that you also get Sneak Attack (not advantage) if your 'victim' is within 5' of an ally.
Carrog Shieldsplitter
 player, 50 posts
Mon 11 May 2015
at 14:06
Re: Hiding
on the contrary, rogues are designed to have the potential to get sneak attack every round very deliberately. ANY time you have advantage, you can inflict sneak attack if you hit. hiding is just the most accessible path through which a rogue can get advantage on attacks.

furthermore, any time you are attacking a foe that is engaged in combat with an ally, you can add sneak attack if you hit.
Ashwolf
 GM, 130 posts
Mon 11 May 2015
at 14:29
Re: Hiding
Indeed, the guys are correct. You don't have "auto invisibility and a mind wipe", you have the ability to hide quickly.
Sneak attack is a different thing altogether, and you can apply that quite a lot without needing to hide.
Fiona Quickseed
 player, 22 posts
 Lightfoot Halfling of the
 Laughing Carp Caravan
Tue 12 May 2015
at 12:01
Re: Hiding
Oh i know it is still easy to get sneak attack, i meant the "auto invis/mind wipe" that Ashwolf is referring to. Seemed weird to me but was my initial interpretation.
Ashwolf
 GM, 133 posts
Tue 12 May 2015
at 13:24
Re: Hiding
With all the discussion on the ranged attacks haw about we go with this one:
  • One person in the way grants 1/2 cover
  • More than 1 person grants 3/4 cover
  • No chance of hitting allies (too much bookkeeping)
  • Nagrom can "accidentally" hit his minions by fudging the dice rolls :)

Carrog Shieldsplitter
 player, 51 posts
Tue 12 May 2015
at 15:01
Re: Hiding
hey Ashwolf, since this was different in previous editions and i see it assumed a lot, it's worth noting that the only way a reach weapon can get an opportunity attack is with a some kind of special ability or the polearm master feat. otherwise they are only provoked when moving out of reach of a target. thus, one can reasonably circle a foe once they are within melee range of them without provoking any attacks, but one must take the disengage action to move out of their reach freely.

i only bring it up because one rarely sees orcs with such special training or special abilities, their stuff is usually focused on highly brutal shock-troop style fighting, getting in and doing maximum damage with no regard for their own well-being. thus, would our characters be surprised by these highly organized tactics, and would there be any in-world precedent or fighting style we might recognize by it?
Tara Chartagnion
 player, 70 posts
 Holy Knight, Diplomat,
 Sentinel and Pious Healer
Tue 12 May 2015
at 15:13
Re: Hiding
Korben var'Gedrick:
In reply to Fiona Quickseed (msg # 18):

Remember that you also get Sneak Attack (not advantage) if your 'victim' is within 5' of an ally.

The interesting thing here is that one even gets Sneak Attack with a ranged weapon in that case. So in the D&D-cosmos dealing precise damage with ranged weapons actually becomes easier when the target is in melee. On top of that, this is still the case when the ally is shielding the victim (albeit granting a +2 cover bonus).
Tara Chartagnion
 player, 71 posts
 Holy Knight, Diplomat,
 Sentinel and Pious Healer
Tue 12 May 2015
at 15:20
Re: Hiding
In reply to Ashwolf (msg # 23):

Personally, I still think that a +5 bonus on AC is too much when more than one person grant cover, so if asked for a vote, I'd vote for raw in this case, that is a flat +2 bonus irregardless of the number of creatures granting cover (as long as it is still reasonable to his; otherwise it would be an automatic fail, e.g. when trying to shoot through an army).

That said I can agree with either ruling.
Korben var'Gedrick
 player, 47 posts
 Hill Dwarf
 Life Cleric of Ulaa
Tue 12 May 2015
at 16:11
Re: Hiding
Again: What Tara said :)
Nagrom
 player, 33 posts
 Half-Elf Warlock
 "Magic is Fun!"
Tue 12 May 2015
at 19:13
Re: Hiding
Stand clear minions....
Ashwolf
 GM, 138 posts
Tue 12 May 2015
at 22:47
Re: Hiding
In reply to Carrog Shieldsplitter (msg # 24):

Thanks for bringing up the feat requirement, I'd looked at some stuff a while ago that assumed the feat, and forgot about it. Orcs don't have the feat.
However, there is a reason for their tactics :) you just haven't stopped or left any alive yet...
Maybe there's plenty more to question after this!
Ashwolf
 GM, 139 posts
Tue 12 May 2015
at 22:49
Re: Hiding
In reply to Tara Chartagnion (msg # 25):

The current sneak attack is meant to model the ability to perform an accurate strike while the opponent is distracted, so it is fine with ranged weapons too.
Ashwolf
 GM, 364 posts
Wed 28 Oct 2015
at 23:41
Spells and Concentration
Hi guys,

Just a quick point that only affects a couple of you.

When maintaining a spell that requires concentration you can still do the following:
 - attack with weapons
 - cast other spells

You cannot:
 - maintain another spell that requires concentration.

Obviously there is a risk of having concentration broken in melee (as Tara found out).
Ashwolf
 GM, 416 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 04:09
Spells and Concentration
Hi guys,

Has anyone else seen this?

http://dnd.wizards.com/article...ference-document-srd
Korben var'Gedrick
 player, 142 posts
 Hill Dwarf
 Life Cleric of Ulaa
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 13:47
Spells and Concentration
Nice to see they produced a 5e OGL. I hoped they would release an SRD after they released the Basic rules. The bigger shock is that the Players Handbook classes and races are in this book--that was unexpected!
Carrog Shieldsplitter
 player, 195 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 14:16
Spells and Concentration
Very exciting. The 3rd ed OGL breathed a lot of life into the hobby just when it needed it. This should help keep and and momentum to gaming.
Ashwolf
 GM, 417 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 14:19
Spells and Concentration
Yeah, it will be interesting. I was lucky enough to get about 7 spells published in Relics and Rituals back in the early days of the OGL, I expect we'll see another big recycle of the 3e stuff for this edition.
Korben var'Gedrick
 player, 143 posts
 Hill Dwarf
 Life Cleric of Ulaa
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 17:05
Spells and Concentration
I think WOTC is trying to put lightning back in the bottle. They had a really good thing going with the massive d20 community they created and they regret destroying it now.
Fargrim Frostbeard
 player, 143 posts
 Dwarven Ranger
 Orcs are bad.
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 17:10
Spells and Concentration
In reply to Ashwolf (msg # 32):

Nice, previously was using...
http://www.nexttools.us