|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:07AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
DM: "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"
Barbarian: "No problem. I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:20AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I think, more than anything, it's a symptom of "Strength = Chance to Hit (With Melee)".
It makes sense in an "Attack vs. AC, for HP damage" situation, because everything is so abstracted, with armor being AC and physical contact not necessarily meaning "a hit".
D&D is just weird (but it's not alone). Things that aren't "attacks in combat in an effort to wound another combatant" often don't really make sense with the attack rules.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:25AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2012
|
Now I don't have before me the new rules but it was odd even to me the Reckless Attack.
The idea is good (made the barbarian reckless even out of Rage), but the mechanic was... uhm... nonsensical at best.
If I remember it right you grant advantage to hit when using reckless attacks, while when in Rage you don't by default. Uhuhm... Aren't the barbarian reckless when "raging"? What kind of controlled rage is that?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:54AM
#4
|
|
|
Well, here is the thing, in D&D, and especially in 5e, your attack roll has nothing to do with accuracy. Nope. Amazed aren't ya? No, instead your damage roll determines how accurate you are. Crazy eh?
Well we are all aboard the bounded crazy train, and it looks like it is here to stay.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:59AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
Attack rolls have never really been about accuracy. They're hit or not hit. Damage is how good of a hit. The combination of the two could be viewed as a measure of accuracy.
I do dig the idea of making an attack roll be accuracy, but I don't know what it would do to BA (which, in light of this discussion, is a very ironic phrase).
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 9:10AM
#6
|
|
|
It's always been more accurate. You didn't get attack bonuses prior, but bonuses to Strength did the same thing. This replicates the effect without changing Strength numbers.
It's odd but narratively, you're hitting so much harder even if you miss vulnerable areas you punch through armour.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 9:28AM
#7
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
DM: "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"
Barbarian: "No problem. I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.
How is this functionally different from the 3e barbarian getting a +4 to Strength when raging? Wouldn't the barbarian in this situation also be more accurate in batting away the poison about to enter the maiden's open mouth? (Assuming he's making a melee attack?)
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 9:42AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
DM: "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"
Barbarian: "No problem. I'll just enter a blind rage and take advantage or perform a Reckless Attack and take advantage"
Over all, I don't mind granting the barbarian advantage and I know it works in the end, but it just seems a bit out of touch.
How is this functionally different from the 3e barbarian getting a +4 to Strength when raging? Wouldn't the barbarian in this situation also be more accurate in batting away the poison about to enter the maiden's open mouth? (Assuming he's making a melee attack?)
I never said it was different, I'm not defending 3e. I'm just saying that idea that a blind rage can in some way help in this situation is rather odd. The issue I have is how the system defines accuracy.
I could see an archer with Precise Shot knocking that vial away, but Precise Shot in 5e doesn't even give you more accuracy without cover. The barbarian however can rage with a ranged weapon (rage doesn't say he must use a melee weapon) and gain more accuracy than the specialist archer fighter.
It would be nice if the system was a little more intuitive, but I guess this is what happens when the designers get lost in the mechanics.
oh well.  I know it's a playtest.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 9:49AM
#9
|
- Here be Dragons next 100 km
|
DM: "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"
What you've done there is to contrive a very specific scenario in which you're using the normal Attack roll to model a more complicated and delicate scenario than it was ever intended to.
The attack roll in melee combat is Strength-based, so it's less about accuracy and more about battering past an opponent's defenses. Using that same roll to represent a situation in which pinpoint accuracy is required and the consequences for too solid a hit are almost as bad as those for a miss is bound to result in some discrepancies.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 10:00AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
DM: "ok the poison is about to enter the maiden's open mouth, you'll have to be very accurate if you want to knock the vial away without hitting her"
What you've done there is to contrive a very specific scenario in which you're using the normal Attack roll to model a more complicated and delicate scenario than it was ever intended to.
The attack roll in melee combat is Strength-based, so it's less about accuracy and more about battering past an opponent's defenses. Using that same roll to represent a situation in which pinpoint accuracy is required and the consequences for too solid a hit are almost as bad as those for a miss is bound to result in some discrepancies.
Yes, it's a contrived scenario, but one that could happen for any number of reasons. For example, hostage situations are in the same boat.
Is the attack roll in combat always strength based? What about DEX based attacks? What about INT based attacks?
|
|
|
