Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kj1225]

So would a fient be like using a deception roll in combat, maybe to change a miss to a hit if you're dual wielding?

[GiglameshDespair]

Gigla, dwarmin, not gilga.

It also rose fro mme completely misunderstanding the maul ability of the lizards. I saw that as whenever a attack hit, they got a maul. Which meant my kenku was outclassed by a huge quantity. So I contacted him about fufilling a different combat role, more tripping and harassment than straight up damage.

As for feinting... you'd feint to open up the enemy for an attack from a different direction. So sacrificing an attack to increase your to-hit for the next, maybe, not working on mindless creatures?

[kj1225]

Well, it would depend on whether the creature actually blocks attacks. If it does then obviously it would still try to block the attack wouldn't it? If it doesn't then  you're just beating on it anyways.

[Criptfeind]

Battle Masters can feint. They use one of their resources (for those of you without the players handbook, battle masters are a fighter archetypes, they get four 'superiority dice' which they use as resources to do specific moves from a pool, from which they learn a specific number of moves) and their bonus action to get advantage on their next attack roll.

[Dwarmin]

Battle Masters can feint. They use one of their resources (for those of you without the players handbook, battle masters are a fighter archetypes, they get four 'superiority dice' which they use as resources to do specific moves from a pool, from which they learn a specific number of moves) and their bonus action to get advantage on their next attack roll.

Fair enough, but we could houserule a less powerful version for non-masters.

Say-well, the 3.5 feint used bluff as a standard action to deny DEX to an opponent's AC, and leave them flatfooted against sneak attacks.

This could be simplified in 5e to saying that if you succeed on a deception roll vs insight check, your next attack would have advantage against that enemy. It would be a full action, much like it's predecessor, so you wouldn't be able to spam it every round. It would be like feint was in 3.5-used for when you're up against a tough enemy and decide to make a play for extra accuracy. It would also allow Rogues to go more toe-to-toe with enemies when they are alone, getting the feint and sneak attacking next round-I know this because one of my favorite chars used this ability quite frequently for this very reason...

Thoughts?

[kj1225]

Would jumping out of a tree surprise an elf?

[Criptfeind]

Oh, right. Sneak attack is in the players handbook as well. I dunno if kj1225 sent you the info on sneak attack. But in 5E you don't need flanking or advantage to sneak attack (although both of those do give it to you, which opens up the hilarious reality a rogue to use a mount to get sneak attack, but I digress). All you need is an ally standing next to the target, doesn't even need to be flanking.

Although that's obviously going to be harder to set up if we are not using any distances or anything, it's still seems like a fairly easy condition to meet in a party with two other melee dudes.

Basically my thoughts on it are: It sounds okay to me. Balanced and such. Although I don't think it will actually see much use unless our rogue has to 1v1 someone.

[GiglameshDespair]

Well, it would depend on whether the creature actually blocks attacks. If it does then obviously it would still try to block the attack wouldn't it? If it doesn't then  you're just beating on it anyways.

Hence nonintelligent.
A creature with an int score would probably try to dodge, block or parry attacks - basically attempt to avoid harm, and that can be considered part of the arbitrary stat that is Armour Class. A nonintelligent entity probably wouldn't. In their case, their armour class is simply their toughness. It's a small degree of simplification, but that makes it more valid to actually use.


----

Battle Masters can feint. They use one of their resources (for those of you without the players handbook, battle masters are a fighter archetypes, they get four 'superiority dice' which they use as resources to do specific moves from a pool, from which they learn a specific number of moves) and their bonus action to get advantage on their next attack roll.

Fair enough, but we could houserule a less powerful version for non-masters.

Say-well, the 3.5 feint used bluff as a standard action to deny DEX to an opponent's AC, and leave them flatfooted against sneak attacks.

This could be simplified in 5e to saying that if you succeed on a deception roll vs insight check, your next attack would have advantage against that enemy. It would be a full action, much like it's predecessor, so you wouldn't be able to spam it every round. It would be like feint was in 3.5-used for when you're up against a tough enemy and decide to make a play for extra accuracy. It would also allow Rogues to go more toe-to-toe with enemies when they are alone, getting the feint and sneak attacking next round-I know this because one of my favorite chars used this ability quite frequently for this very reason...

Thoughts?

I guess?

[kj1225]

Oh, right. Sneak attack is in the players handbook as well. I dunno if kj1225 sent you the info on sneak attack. But in 5E you don't need flanking or advantage to sneak attack (although both of those do give it to you, which opens up the hilarious reality a rogue to use a mount to get sneak attack, but I digress). All you need is an ally standing next to the target, doesn't even need to be flanking.

Although that's obviously going to be harder to set up if we are not using any distances or anything, it's still seems like a fairly easy condition to meet in a party with two other melee dudes.

Basically my thoughts on it are: It sounds okay to me. Balanced and such. Although I don't think it will actually see much use unless our rogue has to 1v1 someone.

Wait really? I thought it worked like in 3.5e and 4e.

[Criptfeind]

Flanking does not, as far as I am able to tell, even exist in 5E.

Edit. But no. If you are standing in a line fighting another line, the rogues get sneak attacks.

[Dwarmin]

Would jumping out of a tree surprise an elf?

If they didn't see you, yeah it would.

Oh, right. Sneak attack is in the players handbook as well. I dunno if kj1225 sent you the info on sneak attack. But in 5E you don't need flanking or advantage to sneak attack (although both of those do give it to you, which opens up the hilarious reality a rogue to use a mount to get sneak attack, but I digress). All you need is an ally standing next to the target, doesn't even need to be flanking.

Although that's obviously going to be harder to set up if we are not using any distances or anything, it's still seems like a fairly easy condition to meet in a party with two other melee dudes.

Basically my thoughts on it are: It sounds okay to me. Balanced and such. Although I don't think it will actually see much use unless our rogue has to 1v1 someone.

That stuff was in the basic rules, I got that at least.

Hence nonintelligent.
A creature with an int score would probably try to dodge, block or parry attacks - basically attempt to avoid harm, and that can be considered part of the arbitrary stat that is Armour Class. A nonintelligent entity probably wouldn't. In their case, their armour class is simply their toughness. It's a small degree of simplification, but that makes it more valid to actually use.

The rules for 3.5 were

When feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it’s impossible.

I'd just simplify (my favorite word in 5e) it to a disadvantage against anything too stupid to be bluffed.

[Criptfeind]

Ahhh. Sorry! I misremembered! (For some reason I thought barbarian was in the basic rules.)

[kj1225]

Well, now I have a basic plan off attack for this encounter.

[scriver]

Yeah, you got to be a special kind of Fighter to get access to be able to do basic combat stuff like parrying, tripping, or feinting. But I guess everyone else can still do it with a common attack roll and descriptive DM:ing

No, it's just unlikely anyone else will be able to do a ranged trip at this point. Doesn't seem the rest have any whippy things or hooked polearms. But that doesn't mean you couldn't try...also, what does melee range matter in a game with no maps, or defined distances? Flavor.

See, the thing is, alot of this stuff is not stated really directly in the rules. It's left up to the GM and players about how to implement however complicated they want it to be-it's more open ended. Like, you could try a feint, right? Even tho I'm not sure what it does. I'm sure we could figure out something.

Anyway, the things with gilg with done more or less on the fly, over PM discussions-no one else bothered to contact me and  to try and work these experimental custom things out, so what do you expect. If I end up making anymore of those decisions, I'll put them somewhere in the OP for everyone to read.

I wasn't saying that in relation to gilga in any way, I was just espousing my bitterness about 5th ed disempowering Fighters

Thoughts?

Fighters are fairly unlikely to succeed with a Deception roll. They should at least get their proficiency bonus added to it or something (and enemy Fighters should also get the same bonus to their Insight check), becaused seasoned warrior should bring some combat savvy and all that.

[kj1225]

That's why GM's can buff things.

Although, if I find out dual wielding maces is no longer viable I will be pissed.