Rules Clarification

04/01/13 Packet


I've been running a homebrew world campaign using the lastest packet.  We have stuck strictly to the packet in regards to the rules.  Last night, there were a couple instances that came up where we could not find any definitive rules to cover.


Scenario 1)

A goblin and a Fighter are engaged in melee combat.  The ranger is 20 ft away and wants to shoot arrows at the goblin.  Is there a penalty?  In 4th edition, I believe there was a -4 penalty to shooting into melee.  We couldnt find anything in the play test rules packet to cover this.  It is entirely possible I missed it though we did give the PDFs a good look through.

Scenario 2)

A wizard or ranger has been engaged by a goblin in melee.  Can that wizard cast a spell or that ranger shoot a bow either at that goblin or another goblin 20 ft away?  As with scenario 1 we couldnt find any specific rules to cover this.  In previous editions you provoked opportunity attacks.


We were also trying to wrap our heads around two weapon fighting.  If you have a long sword in your primary hand and a short sword in your off hand, do both weapons have to be used against the same target?  If so, what happens if the first weapon kills the target?  Can the second weapon move to an adjacent target?  Our initial thought was no because you would basically be invalidating the need for Cleave but the rules never stated specifically one way or the other.


Thanks
-Chris                  
There are no penalties or attacks of opportunity for these situations as the rules stand currently. Based on the cover rule, you could apply a +2 to the AC of a creature that is behind another creature (1/2 cover)...or you could grant +5 for 3/4 cover if you feel that the creature or cover object is providing 3/4 cover.

I think this is how it goes in this package.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

As Rhenny said. Also you don't have to attack the same target when Two-Weapon Fighting.

TWF would not invalidate cleave. You could attack a first target with main hand, swing at a second target with off-hand, kill the second target, and then cleave a third target (using either main or off-hand!).
TWF would not invalidate cleave. You could attack a first target with main hand, swing at a second target with off-hand, kill the second target, and then cleave a third target (using either main or off-hand!).


Almost as OP as Isolated Strike + Sneak Attack for high level rogues.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

TWF would not invalidate cleave. You could attack a first target with main hand, swing at a second target with off-hand, kill the second target, and then cleave a third target (using either main or off-hand!).


Almost as OP as Isolated Strike + Sneak Attack for high level rogues.

"OP"? Really? That's 3d6 damage (if you hit with three different attacks), whereas a greataxe cleave is 2d12 (from two attacks). What is it with people having absolutely no ability to accurately judge balance? If you listen to forum posters, everything in this game is horribly broken and overpowered. It's ridiculous.
"OP"? Really? That's 3d6 damage (if you hit with three different attacks), whereas a greataxe cleave is 2d12 (from two attacks). What is it with people having absolutely no ability to accurately judge balance? If you listen to forum posters, everything in this game is horribly broken and overpowered. It's ridiculous.



3d6 on level 5. I said HIGH level rogue. And if you think an extra 2d12 attack (versus someone who is already next to you IF you kill someone else at the same turn) is more powerful than rolling 10d8 ON TOP of your attack damage, then I doubt you're in position to say "everything's balanced, stop whining"(which is obviously not the case since this is a playTEST).

Furthermore. It was a joke. Take a chill pill, woman.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

Scenario 1: About shooting into melee. This solution is more up to the DM's discretion, but, if u feel like u want to "give" them a consequense of shooting into melee where their is, make them roll the attack with "disadvantage". But only if it "fits" in situation, fluff-wise thats why they made the Advantage/disadvantage rule.

Scenario 2: I would normally rule, that the goblin gets AoO if the wizard spellcasts or someone uses ranged in melee. Again use what makes most sense! you could also give the goblin and advantage on its next attack, or give the ranger/wizard and disadvantage. I would personally go for the AoO, just because to me it makes more sense  
 
I too sought for rules on this. When I find none, I take this to mean that more complex grid-centric combat rules, like flanking and shooting into melee, are planned for, but we didn't get to see those bits of the toolbox just yet.

To make matters more ambiguous, there is mention in the Precise Shot feat cover rules not yet implemented: "In addition, when you make a ranged attack, creatures within 5 feet of you don’t provide cover to your target."

I saw no mention of creatures within 5 feet of you providing said cover though, but the text clearly  implies such a rule is in the Core. I'd say the lack of specificity is indicative of the nature of the playtest's state of flux and the foreshadowed existence of a Grid Combat packet of rules yet to be presented.
Locke: [after mugging a merchant for his clothes] It's a little tight, but the price was right.
Sign In to post comments