To summarise - it would be REALLY helpful when you criticise 5E if you would stick to the terminology of the game. For example:
- Bonus action DOESN'T mean 'something you do besides a single attack and a move'.
- The extra attack class feature doesn't grant you any extra actions.
The fact that some areas of the rules are left to DM's discretion (stealth being my favorite example) doesn't mean all of them are. The game still has rules and when talking about it, it is not terribly helpful to discuss games where they aren't being followed.
I'd appreciate it if you would post an actual build (when saying "a wizard can attack just as often as a fighter, with the same attack bonus" or "it's easy to break bounded accuracy and get an Armor class of 40"). At the moment, it's hard not to just say "you're wrong" because I can't point to WHY you're wrong.
Finally, I want to make clear that I have no interest in persuading you to like 5E. I don't actually like it for face-to-face gaming (like you, I only run it because that's the system my players like). However, I think it's important when discussing an RPG that the rules be depicted as accurately as possible.
There could well be people who don't know about 5E who look in on these kinds of discussions and think (for example) "what's the point in trying this bounded accuracy thing if you still run around with 40 AC - sounds like not much change to me". I think we owe it to them to be accurate in our portrayal of how the rules are, not how they fall apart if you ignore many of them.
You're confusing the threads Steve. In this thread, I said specifics over ride general. THERE ARE rules to have more bonus actions...HOWEVER...as it would be a hot topic, it is NOT THE ONLY item I referred to. There are FAR more specifics than general. The Easiest and most obvious to point out are the additional attacks that are the exception to the ONE ATTACK per ATTACK ACTION that is specified in the general rules. READ the EXAMPLE...rather than supposition and placing things in it that do not exist. I COULD have used bonus actions in the example with exceptions, but instead chose the EASIER and more obvious one.
On page 205, it specifies that these are SPELL effects. A Rules Lawyer COULD read the effect of the Speed potion as not a spell, but the effect of the spell (As per the exact wording) and no concentration required. The conflict of rules comes in on page 139 of the DMG where it states...Once used, a potion takes effect immediately, and is used up. Furthermore, you have the Variant on page 140, which indicates if you DO imbibe two potions...by the rules you have at least a 9% chance of doubling the effect, though a rules lawyer (I know from experience) would probably argue that the 36-90 percent means that they both would work and stack (though I personally admit when I DM'd I ruled against this...but I am also going to say, that is not necessarily the right ruling as I've also seen a WOTC official game where it was allowed at the table).
Now, a DM probably would rule that two potions would not stack (as I stated I would not somewhere in these multiple posts)...BUT the better question comes in when that person is using two weapon fighting (bonus action), gets an extra attack (additional attack on attack action), potion of speed (additional attack), and of course your reactionary attack (which is 5 attacks for a Bard of Valor, the one I actually used to abuse the system on my first go around).
The bigger question would come of course, is if the Bard had a scimitar of speed instead of using two weapon fighting...in which case the rules indicate that they would stack...but as the DM...would you?
A Mage would get 4 attacks out of this, however their out which is an exception comes at high level and would instead abuse the vagueness of the wording of shapechange in order to attain more attacks then they would normally need. Or, there are other ways and things you could do, but that's a simple explanation of one way that you can exceed the mage's attack limits IF you were a rules lawyer.
Hold Person/Monster is perhaps the easiest though, where even if the Mage only has 1 attack a round at low level, that grants them the equivalent of 10 attacks for the duration...of course if they have a party member to help them that means the fighter at the same low level (~5 or 6 we'll say) will get twice that...but if it was just the Wizard and Fighter at that point...most likely at a decent two attacks per round for the Wizard, they'd have two round (4 attacks) on average before the Fighter breaks free (unless the Fighter is either really good at saves, or really poor at saves).
For the Higher abilities and stats, it DOES require multiple party members.
For example, to get a +17 to hit...it would require someone to get a 22 STR (though this was granted to me by a pushover DM with another grant from the Book that allows a stat increase as per a reward, blessings 228, added on top of that the bonus from a manual and it was a total of 24. This could also be gained if one chose to read the book of Vile Darkness...or alternatively if you used both could raise two stats to 24), their +6 proficiency bonus, and as per the DMG amd as per page 285, you can apparently make up to +4 items. This means you can actually have a +17 AB without really much min/max at all, at high levels. I put it a +16 (because, come on, even a push over DM...how many are going to let you have ALL of that?...actually, you might be surprised). You get a party synergy going and you get bless to give you an additional +1-4 points for something between +18 and +21 to hit.
AC was already answered, though I know some of the people that came up with the combos first...
All this is too say, it might have someone twisting the rules...but not out and out breaking or cheating. These are things that are doable in 5e (actually, this is the tip of the iceberg, I min/max'd through it a few times at WotC games...but to tell the truth...at home games most of the stuff I DO NOT ALLOW...of which I put above...or do not give out things like a Christmas tree).
My intent was NOT to get into this discussion but to point out the exact opposite of what has occurred in our discussion (our you guys just wanting to have me utilize rules abuse that I've seen attempted at tables our something?).
That you have to realize special rules over ride general rules...but not for abuse...but in normal processes. The fighter is a great example of this...the fighting styles have multiple exceptions to the general rules. It's rife with exceptions (for example, the critical from 18-20. )You may know the general rules...but if you don't know the special abilities or specifics...than you're either going to hose the players...OR...your going to let the players run you if you have any rules lawyers or min/max players. They'll quote rules after rules and know page and book to quote. Similar to this discussion...
And if this discussion shows ANYTHING about Pathfinder players, is that many of us (and apparently NOT JUST ME) LOVE to rules lawyer about things. As a DM in 5e, this is NOT the approach you want. Period.
This is the WRONG approach because if you even have it start, you are letting players feel that they have a chance at control. That's NOT how 5e should work (despite what I've seen occur, and despite my dislike of the game system...I DO have a good feel at this point of how it SHOULD work).
I've had the unfortune to be the one who did it early on...and later as the DM have it done to me. I've also see it done to others.
It was used as a POINT (as I said, unfortunate that people decided to focus on that one point in the WRONG way) on WHY you need to be the one running the game and not letting others run the game for you (if any of you had actually read past #2 to the conclusion of that particular post, you would have found out).
Me, posting examples of what I've done or seen...I think, especially with how the rules discussions have gone on this board, if anything show that players from PF are expecting RULES to be interpreted and WORK in the way THEY want to.
In a way, it is emphasizing what the DMG already does on page 5, where it tries to tell you that a DM needs to be able to have a clear idea of the contents and be able to find the proper references (once again, as opposed to letting players run you). However, I don't think that advice on page 6 is good enough to prepare someone against "optimizers" and all the zany stuff they might try (and as one of them occasionally, I KNOW it doesn't).
Once again, as I've said again and again (and obviously missed, but I think the point is blatantly made about PF players from the very conversations we've had with rules lawyers being rules lawyers)...is that we love to optimize and rules legate to each other.
Which I feel is actually very contrary to the heart of what 5e is and tries to be. It's that distinction of whether the players will attempt to run the game...or whether it's going to be the DM running the game.
You don't have to know EVERY rule, but you DO have to know how to prevent abuses of them...whether it's min/max...or if the rules bending equates to what you would consider in YOUR GAME (but not others...you can't dictate other's games to them) as cheating, or powergaming, or munchkinism, or simply just build planning (which I think is the start of the entire thing).
In 5e, the DM should be King (at least at their table for rulings and decisions).
And since I've said all of this, it should bring me to the REAL reason why I don't like 5e as a system.
I've played with push over DM's. I've abused the system in the past...it's true...but that was at the beginning just to see how far I could go with it.
Overall, I am normally happy to settle for a NORMAL game session as the rules intended.
However...there is ALWAYS someone at the table that is driving the game besides the DM. They abuse it and before I know it, though I'm keeping the spirit of the game, you have some optimizer that is basically ruling the roost. It's FAR worse than Pathfinder from all my experiences...and I literally dislike it and it's driven me batty.
I've tried different approaches to try to balance it out for people (I ran 2nd darkness and tried to incorporate PF ideas into the game so to try to balance this thing out to a degree, and eventually just ran 5e like it was and became a very rules strict DM and one that would say when asked if I didn't allow something people thought should be allowed...because I'm the DM and I'm making this ruling).
The abuses of the system and what is allowed...makes it a VERY unfun game for me to play in the areas I've been. I don't like playing with the optimizers (and as I admit, early on I was one at first), and they really break the system.
The REASON that I've been able to bear it at my table (and this is a group in PF that took down the RuneLord of Greed, Karzoug, in two rounds in the final battle...so a tad on the optimizing side) is because they'll put up with me putting the foot down.
However, I've been in other games where the DM simply DOES NOT DO IT...and it's made me HATE 5e with a passion...because as I am playing with the flow with my bounded accuracy...someone else is busy breaking that intent and it sucks.
Which is, in truth, why I truly despise playing in 5e games these days where I'm not the DM. Every experience that has gone beyond level 10 except when I was being the bad player...has been terrible simply due to the abuse at the table of the rules (and I've only listed the tip of the iceberg as my examples on this thread and others).
But, when I am truthfully analyzing WHY...it really does boil down to what I'm saying is the most important point...the players are running the game (or the ones that are manipulating the rules to their benefit and the DM goes along with it). The DM needs to run the 5e game...or I think many players that try to keep with the spirit of it also get to the point where they simply either don't care about 5e anymore, or (probably, or hopefully not as many as me) actively start to hate it.
And since I've said all of this, it should bring me to the REAL reason why I don't like 5e as a system.
I've played with push over DM's. I've abused the system in the past...it's true...but that was at the beginning just to see how far I could go with it.
Overall, I am normally happy to settle for a NORMAL game session as the rules intended.
However...there is ALWAYS someone at the table that is driving the game besides the DM. They abuse it and before I know it, though I'm keeping the spirit of the game, you have some optimizer that is basically ruling the roost. It's FAR worse than Pathfinder from all my experiences...and I literally dislike it and it's driven me batty.
I've tried different approaches to try to balance it out for people (I ran 2nd darkness and tried to incorporate PF ideas into the game so to try to balance this thing out to a degree, and eventually just ran 5e like it was and became a very rules strict DM and one that would say when asked if I didn't allow something people thought should be allowed...because I'm the DM and I'm making this ruling).
The abuses of the system and what is allowed...makes it a VERY unfun game for me to play in the areas I've been. I don't like playing with the optimizers (and as I admit, early on I was one at first), and they really break the system.
The REASON that I've been able to bear it at my table (and this is a group in PF that took down the RuneLord of Greed, Karzoug, in two rounds in the final battle...so a tad on the optimizing side) is because they'll put up with me putting the foot down.
However, I've been in other games where the DM simply DOES NOT DO IT...and it's made me HATE 5e with a passion...because as I am playing with the flow with my bounded accuracy...someone else is busy breaking that intent and it sucks.
Which is, in truth, why I truly despise playing in 5e games these days where I'm not the DM. Every experience that has gone beyond level 10 except when I was being the bad player...has been terrible simply due to the abuse at the table of the rules (and I've only listed the tip of the iceberg as my examples on this thread and others).
But, when I am truthfully analyzing WHY...it really does boil down to what I'm saying is the most important point...the players are running the game (or the ones that are manipulating the rules to their benefit and the DM goes along with it). The DM needs to run the 5e game...or I think many players that try to keep with the spirit of it also get to the point where they simply either don't care about 5e anymore, or (probably, or hopefully not as many as me) actively start to hate it.
This really sounds strange to me. My translation of this is:
"I really hate 5E, because I've never been able to play at a table where it's been used properly."
I obviously agree with you that the DM shouldn't allow the players to dictate how the rules should be interpreted. I also agree that there's a tendency amongst players to always push for the interpretation that favors them. That's nothing to do with 5E though - even if it's happened to you a lot, it just means you havent had a good DM.
To me, it's like "hating Dragon Age because I played with a DM who didn't allow stunts because he didnt like the mechanic". To analyse Dragon Age you have to include the stunt mechanic - anything else is quite unhelpful (particularly if you portray lack-of-stunts as being a feature of Dragon Age).
...And since I've said all of this, it should bring me to the REAL reason why I don't like 5e as a system.
I've played with push over DM's. I've abused the system in the past...it's true...but that was at the beginning just to see how far I could go with it.
Overall, I am normally happy to settle for a NORMAL game session as the rules intended.
However...there is ALWAYS someone at the table that is driving the game besides the DM. They abuse it and before I know it, though I'm keeping the spirit of the game, you have some optimizer that is basically ruling the roost. It's FAR worse than Pathfinder from all my experiences...and I literally dislike it and it's driven me batty.
I've tried different approaches to try to balance it out for people (I ran 2nd darkness and tried to incorporate PF ideas into the game so to try to balance this thing out to a degree, and eventually just ran 5e like it was and became a very rules strict DM and one that would say when asked if I didn't allow something people thought should be allowed...because I'm the DM and I'm making this ruling).
The abuses of the system and what is allowed...makes it a VERY unfun game for me to play in the areas I've been. I don't like playing with the optimizers (and as I admit, early on I was one at first), and they really break the system.
The REASON that I've been able to bear it at my table (and this is a group in PF that took down the RuneLord of Greed, Karzoug, in two rounds in the final battle...so a tad on the optimizing side) is because they'll put up with me putting the foot down.
However, I've been in other games where the DM simply DOES NOT DO IT...and it's made me HATE 5e with a passion...because as I am playing with the flow with my bounded accuracy...someone else is busy breaking that intent and it sucks.
Which is, in truth, why I truly despise playing in 5e games these days where I'm not the DM. Every experience that has gone beyond level 10 except when I was being the bad
Well, if the WOTC DM's (at least those sanctioned by them) aren't good at running their own game...it doesn't really inspire hope to me...
This is why my most important thing for PF DM's going over to 5e to remember, is the main thing I've been trying to make a point of.
Thus far, Dragon Age hasn't really shown the same types of abuse, or the ability to abuse it like 5e has. I think part of that is that it does not have the artificial limitations that 5e has, and hence maybe people don't feel like they have to beat those barriers then...or perhaps it's just the way the system deals with improving characters doesn't lend itself to as many loopholes?
(DARPG has less magic available, so that COULD be an area where abuse is more limited?).
I haven't been playing DARPG for that long though...it could be I have yet to see the abuses available...but then...any DARPG I've played is with the home group instead of at stores. No stores I have where I've been at thus far have official sanctioned DARPG game nights or gaming.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I think even that goes too high. My version of your "Challenging" would be something like 13-15, followed by 15-18, then capped at something like 19-22.For the love of all things holy, un-learn the Pathfinder paradigm of what an appropriate DC is for a skill check.Indeed.
My own guide:
Easy: 2-7 (Many times these auto-succeed)
Moderate: 8-12
Challenging: 13-20
Difficult: 21-28
Neary impossible: 29+ (Many times these auto fail)
Interestingly, the suggested DCs they have in the PHB (page 171) are:
- Very Easy: 5
- Easy: 10
- Medium: 15
- Hard: 20
- Very Hard: 25
- Nearly Impossible: 30
The difference is that rather than these DCs are static and relative to the world itself, not the PC level. Lower characters can tackle medium and lower challenges easily, and hard challenges are... well... hard. At higher levels, the PCs start being able to handle even more difficult - or even nigh impossible feats.... because they're awesome.
The advice being: Beware min-maxing too much. E.g. You can't dump Strength and rely on skill ranks to still let you climb walls. Rogues and Bards can almost get away with it with Expertise, but it means using the feature to compensate for a weakness, rather than augment a strength to really shine.
Advice for New Players/GMs:
- Players: Do not expect to get optimized magic items: You don't need them. No, really, you do not need a magic weapon, though you might want to invest in silvering one.
- GMs: Be very careful with handing out magic items. 5E is not Pathfinder and the PCs do not need to be laden with a magic arsenal - indeed, the monster design assumes they aren't, and you'll quickly find the players overwhelming encounters easily if the party loaded with magic arms and armor.
- Both: The GM is the arbiter of the rules and what is and is not allowed in the game, and while you can disagree and discuss, theirs is the final say. This isn't intended to be confrontational - quite the opposite actually - it just takes a bit of respect and patience on both sides.
Regarding Action Economy: There are enough walls of text already, and I don't have the time or patience right now to argue it out (sick toddler), so I'll just state the obvious and move on.
In 5th edition, the 'normal' action economy allows you to do the following in one round:
- Move up to your walking speed
- Take one Action, including (but not limited to) casting a spell, attacking (Once normally, twice with Extra Attack or more if a high level Fighter), dashing to move further and so on.
- Take one Bonus Action (and only one, Ref: PHB pg189 should you have an ability that allows you to do so. Things that let you use a Bonus Action to make one or more attacks include; Monk Martial Arts (1 attack), Monk Flurry of Blows (2 attacks), Dual-Wielding (1 attack), War Domain (1 attack), scimitar of speed (1 attack), Barbarian FB Frenzy (1 attack), and there are likely others.
- Take one Reaction on another persons turn, which may be due to a number of things, including: Hostile creature movement provoking an Opportunity Attack, using the Shield Master feat, using Uncanny Dodge, having used the Ready Action on your turn.
There are a number of items, spells and class features that let you exceed the standard item economy, such as:
- Action Surge (Fighter), lets you take a second Action on your turn.
- Horde Breaker (Hunter Ranger), lets you make an additional attack against an adjacent foe - no action required.
- Haste lets you take an additional Action on your turn, however what you can do with it is more restricted (e.g. single attack only).
- A potion of speed gives you the benefits of the haste spell without requiring concentration, so functions exactly as above (multiple haste spells do not stack, so clearly the potions cannot either).
- Thief's Reflexes (Thief Rogue) lets you take an entire second Turn on the surprise round.
- And there may well be others.
All of these function in a very specific way that allows one to bypass the general action economy. But in no case does it permit the use of more than one Bonus Action per Turn.
If people play the game as written, and respect that the GM has final say in arbitration when rules are unclear, the system balances fairly well, and the insanity mentioned in some of the previous posts simply cannot appear.
Rampaging Tarrasq... I mean... Toddler, beckons.
/signing out.
You're confusing the threads Steve. In this thread, I said specifics over ride general.
No I'm really not - I'm just focussing on the things you are presenting as negatives about 5E which are contrary to the rules of 5E.
As I said, I don't have any interest in persuading you to like it (I don't particularly, although I appreciate the elegant simplicity and speed of resolution - I think it's FAR superior than either 4E or Pathfinder for PBP, for example).
I think it's important to present the rules as they actually are. Not say "here's some bad things that happened to me when we didn't follow the rules properly or stretched the rules beyond what's reasonable". There's no point analysing any RPG from a subjective 'what happened at my table' perspective - that is an anecdote, but it's not terribly useful to learn how things are in general.
With that said, perhaps you can try and provide concrete examples here:
THERE ARE rules to have more bonus actions
What are they? The only one is the rogue talent which grants you a second turn in the opening round of a combat. What else are you thinking of?
...HOWEVER...as it would be a hot topic, it is NOT THE ONLY item I referred to. There are FAR more specifics than general. The Easiest and most obvious to point out are the additional attacks that are the exception to the ONE ATTACK per ATTACK ACTION that is specified in the general rules. READ the EXAMPLE...rather than supposition and placing things in it that do not exist. I COULD have used bonus actions in the example with exceptions, but instead chose the EASIER and more obvious one.
Just to clarify - the reason I didn't challenge the statement that a fighter gets to make two or more attacks when he uses the attack action is because I don't disagree with it.
I was pointing out where you had made errors, not going through point by point just looking for a fight (it was intended to be helpful).
On page 205, it specifies that these are SPELL effects. A Rules Lawyer COULD read the effect of the Speed potion as not a spell, but the effect of the spell (As per the exact wording) and no concentration required.
And they'd be wrong.
People argue (or used to, anyhow) in PF that you can't sneak attack undead - they can write pages on the topic, but they're still objectively wrong. Arguing doesn't mean you have a case.
BUT the better question comes in when that person is using two weapon fighting (bonus action), gets an extra attack (additional attack on attack action), potion of speed (additional attack), and of course your reactionary attack (which is 5 attacks for a Bard of Valor, the one I actually used to abuse the system on my first go around).
You shouldn't count reactions (since you can't do it in your turn and aren't able to ensure it happens). However, this isn't abuse. A valor bard of sixth level or higher who is fighting with two weapons who has drunk a potion of speed does get to make four attacks in his turn. He is also able to make an opportunity attack if circumstances allow it between his turns.
The bigger question would come of course, is if the Bard had a scimitar of speed instead of using two weapon fighting...in which case the rules indicate that they would stack...but as the DM...would you?
The rules indicate they wouldn't stack. You can only have one bonus action. In this case he can choose whether to use his bonus action to make an attack with his off-hand weapon or whether to make an attack with his scimitar of speed.
This is one error you are continually making. You might be able to use a bonus action, but if you have several 'sources' you have to choose which to do.
A Mage would get 4 attacks out of this, however their out which is an exception comes at high level and would instead abuse the vagueness of the wording of shapechange in order to attain more attacks then they would normally need. Or, there are other ways and things you could do, but that's a simple explanation of one way that you can exceed the mage's attack limits IF you were a rules lawyer.
You havent given a concrete example here. For the first, I presume you mean a wizard is using two weapon fighting, having drunk a haste potion? He would get two attacks via his attack action and a bonus action plus the potential for one opportunity attack in other people's turns. This isn't rules lawyering - it's correct and it isn't broken (it's a pathetic amount of damage and a very silly waste of resources).
The wildshape thing is too unspecified here. I'm happy to look at it, if you post what you're trying to do exactly.
Hold Person/Monster is perhaps the easiest though, where even if the Mage only has 1 attack a round at low level, that grants them the equivalent of 10 attacks for the duration
Is this example supposed to be that he paralyses someone for ten rounds then attacks them once each round? Ten attacks over multiple rounds. That's not an example of 'exceeding a mage's attack limits'. He’s attacking once per round for ten rounds.
AC was already answered
No it wasn’t (bookrat’s link contained a couple of errors). How did you achieve a 40 AC? I really think it’s impossible.
All this is too say, it might have someone twisting the rules...but not out and out breaking or cheating. These are things that are doable in 5e
I really don’t think they are. I think it’s based on a flawed understanding of the rules. It’s hard to say without a complete build though.
My intent was NOT to get into this discussion but to point out the exact opposite of what has occurred in our discussion (our you guys just wanting to have me utilize rules abuse that I've seen attempted at tables our something?).
No I appreciate what you were trying to do. That’s the reason I asked your permission – I don’t have any interest in engaging you if you’re not interested, nor in criticising your statements if you don’t want me to. I DO want to make sure that people reading this thread (quite possibly people who don’t understand 5E very well at all) know that many of the statements you’ve made here and elsewhere as being “what’s wrong with 5E” are in fact due to errors in applying the rules.
In that respect, you and I are pushing for the same goal really – if you play 5E I think the game will go better if the DM is willing to lay down the law and it’s important that players are on board with that too. (Or the group has to have a reasonably robust, objective way of deciding such things via consensus).
That you have to realize special rules over ride general rules...but not for abuse...but in normal processes. The fighter is a great example of this...the fighting styles have multiple exceptions to the general rules. It's rife with exceptions (for example, the critical from 18-20. )You may know the general rules...but if you don't know the special abilities or specifics...than you're either going to hose the players...OR...your going to let the players run you if you have any rules lawyers or min/max players. They'll quote rules after rules and know page and book to quote. Similar to this discussion...
I don’t really have a response to this, other than to say I pretty much agree. The only disagreement I have is that many of the examples of “rules lawyering” and “min/maxing” you’ve provided are, in fact, just errors.
Well, if the WOTC DM's (at least those sanctioned by them) aren't good at running their own game...it doesn't really inspire hope to me...
I don't really understand this. You think they're doing it wrong (that's been your whole point, right?) This comment seems to suggest you think they're doing it right.
In my opinion, it doesn't mean much that organised play DMs aren't really used to the system yet after barely more than a year. I mean the vetting/qualifying process isn't particularly onerous is it?
Thus far, Dragon Age hasn't really shown the same types of abuse, or the ability to abuse it like 5e has. I think part of that is that it does not have the artificial limitations that 5e has, and hence maybe people don't feel like they have to beat those barriers then...or perhaps it's just the way the system deals with improving characters doesn't lend itself to as many loopholes?
(DARPG has less magic available, so that COULD be an area where abuse is more limited?).
I haven't been playing DARPG for that long though...it could be I have yet to see the abuses available...but then...any DARPG I've played is with the home group instead of at stores. No stores I have where I've been at thus far have official sanctioned DARPG game nights or gaming.
I think that's the key - you haven't played Dragon Age with a poor DM yet but have played 5E under some DMs you thought were missing the point of the system. That doesn't mean one system is better or worse with regard to system abuse.
No it wasn’t (bookrat’s link contained a couple of errors). How did you achieve a 40 AC? I really think it’s impossible.
Good question.
The first point is that getting anywhere near that high, even if possible, requires either a magic-mart economy that is not intended to exist in 5E, or a GM who is generous to the point of excess.
Next, for the sake of theorycrafting... some attempts in that regard. Calculated value is a mix of static AC and buffs (shield of faith and haste, assuming you get people to buff the character... for Science!)
- Barbarian 20 with Con 26 (including Tome) (Base 18), +3 Shield (+5), Ring of Protection (+1) = 25 normally. 29 with buffs.
- Fighter with +3 Plate (Base 21), Shield+3, Defensive fighting style (+1), ring of protection = 28 normally, 32 with buffs.
- Monk with Dex and Wis 22 (with tomes) (Base 16 + 6 = 22), Bracers of Defense (+2), Ring of Protection (+1) = 25 normally, 29 with buffs.
- Eldritch Knight/Wizard, in plate+3 (base 21), +3 Shield (+5), Defensive fighting style (+1), Ring of Protection (+1) = 28 normally, 32 with buffs and 37 with shield...
Okay, if you start dealing with Artifacts with whose random properties include stat boosts in conjunction with the above (unlikely to the point of irrelevance) then maybe some of those could push to 40.
But this is all predicated on a character decked up to the eyeballs in magic items and getting buffed by one or two other characters.
(On a related note, I find that haste actually doesn't get cast that often: It's single target, concentration, and when it ends after a minute or a failed concentration check, the target loses an entire turn. It has it's place, but it's not the go-to buff it used to be).
@steve...
Perhaps you should enlighten WOTC with your theories then?
As many of these came straight from WotC events and supposedly sanctioned DMs. It wasn't just one or two or a few either.
See...this is the problem...people can run the game as they like, but when things like this are approved in WotC events...it kind of gives it an air of authority.
You may call it bad DMing...but officially sanctioned sort of gives it an air above that of people disagreeing with WotC things on a forum to me.
I gave the page number references even...soooo....I can buy it's all in interpretation...but the thing is...even officially...not everyone agrees that your interpretation of the thing is correct in light of multiple potion downing and other things (and in fact, it IS available for double the effect as per the tables with the potion of speed...and can even be manipulated by special effects or causes to give a higher chance).
Dragon Age doesn't have the same things...but I was one of those that was at the forefront of breaking the 5e system originally (well, following them closely) and I haven't seen anything like that for Dragon Age thus far. I think it's more a symptom that 5e is broken easily if abused...and instead of addressing the problems (which I attribute to trying to limit with fake limitations instead of more solid and logical ones like DA), people will make excuses or try to find ways that they personally rule it differently...
I think with some additional options WotC could actually fix all of this (with more clarity on some items even...though that apparently isn't what their intent is)...but their silence in the wake of people bringing up these things at events or waving it off saying...it's the DM's authority...kind of makes me think that though they may be fully aware of it, they fully approve of that playstyle.
I just don't think they know how to deal with it (as per their suggestions on how to deal with optimizers in the DMG)...
Though, that's my opinion from somebody that's grown VERY sour...and yes...a year is FAR more than enough time in my book. 3e had multiple things out within a year...4e had even more to a degree. At least they were trying harder to address issues (from what I saw) in those editions than 5e (granted, they ALSO had more people working on it at the time).
I haven't had the problems with PF that I've seen with 5e...but as I said, there are those that put up with it, and those that abuse it since nothing is really done about it...
BUT, it's okay...I'm among those that no longer have to deal with it as my group has another system now that we all seem to like when we aren't playing Pathfinder.
It's not a worry I have to really deal with again...I hope...but it sure left bad tastes about it for me.
Added: AS you wanted another example (remember, I said how the biggest numbers come from team synergy...Another bonus action which gives another player an attack would be Commander's strike for example (pg 74).
You may call it bad DMing...but officially sanctioned sort of gives it an air above that of people disagreeing with WotC things on a forum to me.
I thought YOU were calling it bad DMing. That was the point of what you've been saying in this thread, wasn't it?
Perhaps you should enlighten WOTC with your theories then?
As many of these came straight from WotC events and supposedly sanctioned DMs. It wasn't just one or two or a few either.
Well I wasn't there, obviously. However, if I was playing in an official event and the DM allowed more than one bonus action per round then I suspect I would let them know they were making an error.
You may call it bad DMing...but officially sanctioned sort of gives it an air above that of people disagreeing with WotC things on a forum to me.I thought YOU were calling it bad DMing. That was the point of what you've been saying in this thread, wasn't it?
I absolutely Agree it is bad DMing...but as far as rulings...a lot of what put a bad taste in my mouth was it seemed acceptable rulings as far as WotC goes.
I added one thing above because you kept asking for another example of bonus attacks (and I will restate again, the best items for these things come from team synergy)...look at page 74 at Commander's strike for an specialized exception to the general rule...where yes...in ruling it is another character's bonus action that gives someone else the attack, so in theory sticks with the the rule, but in essence is giving someone else the bonus action/attack.
You may call it bad DMing...but officially sanctioned sort of gives it an air above that of people disagreeing with WotC things on a forum to me.I thought YOU were calling it bad DMing. That was the point of what you've been saying in this thread, wasn't it?I absolutely Agree it is bad DMing...but as far as rulings...a lot of what put a bad taste in my mouth was it seemed acceptable rulings as far as WotC goes.
I added one thing above because you kept asking for another example of bonus attacks (and I will restate again, the best items for these things come from team synergy)...look at page 74 at Commander's strike for an specialized exception to the general rule...where yes...in ruling it is another character's bonus action that gives someone else the attack, so in theory sticks with the the rule, but in essence is giving someone else the bonus action/attack.
Well, it kind of feels like we're at the end of our discussion. Nonetheless, I didn't ask for an example of a bonus action which grants another player an attack. Although note that commander's strike doesn't add to the five attacks you attributed to the valor bard above, because you'd already counted his reaction - if you benefit from commander's strike and use your reaction, you can't then make an opportunity attack.
Commander's strike doesn't 'in essence give someone else the bonus action/attack' - those words all mean something specific within 5E. Commander's strike allows you to forgo one of your attacks and spend your bonus action to allow someone else to make an attack by spending their reaction.
The example I asked for was some feature which gave you the ability to take more than one bonus action in a round (that's what you claimed was possible which isn't).
No it wasn’t (bookrat’s link contained a couple of errors). How did you achieve a 40 AC? I really think it’s impossible.Good question.
The first point is that getting anywhere near that high, even if possible, requires either a magic-mart economy that is not intended to exist in 5E, or a GM who is generous to the point of excess.
Next, for the sake of theorycrafting... some attempts in that regard. Calculated value is a mix of static AC and buffs (shield of faith and haste, assuming you get people to buff the character... for Science!)
- Barbarian 20 with Con 26 (including Tome) (Base 18), +3 Shield (+5), Ring of Protection (+1) = 25 normally. 29 with buffs.
- Fighter with +3 Plate (Base 21), Shield+3, Defensive fighting style (+1), ring of protection = 28 normally, 32 with buffs.
- Monk with Dex and Wis 22 (with tomes) (Base 16 + 6 = 22), Bracers of Defense (+2), Ring of Protection (+1) = 25 normally, 29 with buffs.
- Eldritch Knight/Wizard, in plate+3 (base 21), +3 Shield (+5), Defensive fighting style (+1), Ring of Protection (+1) = 28 normally, 32 with buffs and 37 with shield...
Okay, if you start dealing with Artifacts with whose random properties include stat boosts in conjunction with the above (unlikely to the point of irrelevance) then maybe some of those could push to 40.
But this is all predicated on a character decked up to the eyeballs in magic items and getting buffed by one or two other characters.
(On a related note, I find that haste actually doesn't get cast that often: It's single target, concentration, and when it ends after a minute or a failed concentration check, the target loses an entire turn. It has it's place, but it's not the go-to buff it used to be).
I'd have to look up the original posts from a year ago in regards to it, or find copies of a characters sheet that I have. If I recall it requires some team synergy for it to work, which is probably what Steve was missing in some of the posts he studied. The most powerful and highest effects work when the players push someone to be the tank or super power of the team.
It boils down to something similar, except you can add another +6 to +7 for DEX for the Barbarian if they have a high DEX. If you take Martial adept, though it is only a temp thing...which can grant you 1d6 on your AC (Battlemaster fighters can get this as part of their selections though, so you could include it and they can have more and higher dice throws). Using Evasive footwork that adds another +1d6 to the mix.
If you max those out, just with what you have stated...
Barbarian Con 26, DEX 24 = Base 25 + 3 Shield = 30, + Ring of Protection = 31, +6 (max roll on Evasive footwork) = 37, and then you add your buffs in.
note, this is just off the top of my head without actually doing the indepth stuff or referring what I'd normally refer to.
For Fighters, at 18th, those superiority dice turn into D12s...just as a note.
The wording is vague, and so it could be ruled that the evasive footwork only lasts one move, or as long as someone moves every turn, it remains.
Precision attack can likewise work, but on a more limited manner in regards to adding to your attack roll (so for ONE attack for the Barbarian they might be able to get up to a +22 in regards to hitting...or up to +26 with bless).
Of course, these are reliant upon picking up the feat, obviously.
You may call it bad DMing...but officially sanctioned sort of gives it an air above that of people disagreeing with WotC things on a forum to me.I thought YOU were calling it bad DMing. That was the point of what you've been saying in this thread, wasn't it?I absolutely Agree it is bad DMing...but as far as rulings...a lot of what put a bad taste in my mouth was it seemed acceptable rulings as far as WotC goes.
I added one thing above because you kept asking for another example of bonus attacks (and I will restate again, the best items for these things come from team synergy)...look at page 74 at Commander's strike for an specialized exception to the general rule...where yes...in ruling it is another character's bonus action that gives someone else the attack, so in theory sticks with the the rule, but in essence is giving someone else the bonus action/attack.
Well, it kind of feels like we're at the end of our discussion. Nonetheless, I didn't ask for an example of a bonus action which grants another player an attack. Although note that commander's strike doesn't add to the five attacks you attributed to the valor bard above, because you'd already counted his reaction - if you benefit from commander's strike and use your reaction, you can't then make an opportunity attack.
Commander's strike doesn't 'in essence give someone else the bonus action/attack' - those words all mean something within 5E. Commander's strike allows you to forgo one of your attacks and spend your bonus action to allow someone else to make an attack by spending their reaction.
The example I asked for was some feature which gave you the ability to take more than one bonus action in a round (that's what you claimed was possible which isn't).
I already accounted for all the attacks for the Valor Bard overall...but I wasn't using this maneuver in any of my examples (as I clearly stated...don't confuse the matter on that...I made sure in my examples above to only use ONE bonus action total).
In regards to the actual bonus action being used...One can make excuses about this all they want, but in truth, it is using a bonus action in effect giving it to someone else specifically to attack (by also wasting one of yours).
This was simply because the request for bonus actions that can give people actions above and beyond their normal bonus action. I was simply granting the request of examples of things which a bonus action might do that.
It specifies that it is using a bonus action, and in essence one could say it would be defined either way. Of course, there is the out as you pointed out...of in theory, it is someone else using their bonus action to grant another player an action instead which uses up the reaction.
I suppose it's the difference between the official definition of "bonus" action in 5e, and what logically are bonus actions that are given over and above the normal actions which can be where the confusion comes from.
the DEFINED "bonus" actions as per the rules is ONE bonus action per round (as also the attack action is ONE attack per round). Technically any OTHER bonus actions used for your benefit, or utilized by you, would not be able to be utilized. It's a technicality then, and a phrasing which allows another person to use their bonus action to give you an action...if that makes sense.
You misunderstand. You attributed five attacks in a round to a valor bard - two from his attack action, one from potion of speed, one from a bonus action (being either TWF or a scimitar of speed) and one from his reaction (whether an opportunity attack or something else).
If he is the beneficiary of commander's strike he doesn't get any more - the reaction has already been counted.
the request for bonus actions that can give people actions above and beyond their normal bonus action. I was simply granting the request of examples of things which a bonus action might do that.
Nobody requested that.
I requested the example via this exchange (I presume):
THERE ARE rules to have more bonus actionsWhat are they? The only one is the rogue talent which grants you a second turn in the opening round of a combat. What else are you thinking of?
This is right after the post where you asked me to use the definitions from the book. So I'm asking you for an example of a rule which allows you to have more bonus actions (as defined by the book). It seems there aren't any beyond the high-level rogue power bookrat found.
You misunderstand. You attributed five attacks in a round to a valor bard - two from his attack action, one from potion of speed, one from a bonus action (being either TWF or a scimitar of speed) and one from his reaction (whether an opportunity attack or something else).
If he is the beneficiary of commander's strike he doesn't get any more - the reaction has already been counted.
the request for bonus actions that can give people actions above and beyond their normal bonus action. I was simply granting the request of examples of things which a bonus action might do that.Nobody requested that.
I requested the example via this exchange (I presume):
This is right after the post where you asked me to use the definitions from the book. So I'm asking you for an example of a rule which allows you to have more bonus actions (as defined by the book). It seems there aren't any beyond the high-level rogue power bookrat found.THERE ARE rules to have more bonus actionsWhat are they? The only one is the rogue talent which grants you a second turn in the opening round of a combat. What else are you thinking of?
Let me clarify...as I think you MAY be trying to cloud the issue and the example I posted above.
The VALOR BARD had NOTHING TO DO with an ADDITIONAL BONUS ACTION by him OR ANYONE ELSE. That BONUS ACTION EXAMPLE I POSTED AFTER YOUR REQUEST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY VALOR BARD EXAMPLE.
Is that clear enough.
I was not suggesting that the maneuver be used on the Valor Bard, in any way. It could be utilized to enable the Bard to use the reaction...but I was NOT counting it as the cause or utilizing it as the bonus action in that example.
It is a totally and separate example...so there is NO reason for you to be trying to convince anyone that it was.
I was responding to your request for examples of additional bonus actions being able to be used by others. That maneuver is a prime example of one...where it is only by a wording technicality that one says they are using their bonus action.
In reality...the character USING that bonus action does NOTHING...in essence that bonus action is being USED to give an action option to another person.
Hence, the wording stays true to the rules in a way...but in reality...as the one granting the action really does NOTHING (one could say they do less actually), the other character gets that attack action.
It's technical fault...that enables them to still say one only gets ONE bonus action...when in truth they gain the benefit of a second bonus action (if they took their first bonus action already) in regards to the actual benefit of the maneuver.
If we want to talk about iffy...there's also a ruling out there (that I haven't seen countered) that allows a fighter up to 8 attacks a round (briefly hinted at sometime when I was discussing 5e).
Here's an actual example of the quote...
Action SurgeOne of the special cases is the fighter ability Action Surge. This allows you to take one additional action during your turn. If you use this to take the Attack action, you get as many attacks as you would if you took it for your first action. So, a 20th level fighter can get 8 attacks in a turn – four from the first Attack action and four from the second Attack action. You could then use your bonus action to attack with your off-hand weapon (Two-Weapon Fighting). Note that Action Surge does not give you an additional bonus action or move; only an additional action.
Though that same author probably clarifies what get's wonky when we refer to things. What I may call a bonus action...may not necessarily strictly BE by the definition bonus actions all the time...in all honesty. 5e is very particular with it's words...but unfortunately that makes discussing it sometimes very difficult without slip ups of what words you are referring to...
Most of the rules and power descriptions in the new edition of D&D use quite specific wording, but because the terms can be quite similar, it’s easy to get confused. “Attack action”, “As an action” and “Attack” mean three separate things, as do “When you make an attack” and “When you take the Attack action”. As long as you keep the differences in mind, you should be fine.
(from Merric
So it is possible in all the 5e musings that I slipped up in terminology in what I was referring to as well...which probably does NOT help clarify things as much.Still...the Action surge item and the fighter getting 8 attacks...can be an interesting ruling. In that light with that specific understanding of the rules...even if one can get up to 5 attacks, I have yet to see anyone but a fighter get up to 8 or 9 attacks.
It's technical fault...that enables them to still say one only gets ONE bonus action...when in truth they gain the benefit of a second bonus action (if they took their first bonus action already) in regards to the actual benefit of the maneuver.
No. For Commander's Strike, the person benefiting from the ability must also use their Reaction. If they've already used their Reaction, they cannot benefit from the use of Commander's Strike. Ergo, they are not using more than one Bonus Action in a round.
And for the record: Two-Weapon Fighting + Haste + Extra Attack with a possible Opportunity Attack is not min/maxing or abusing the rules. It's using the rules as intended.
I was responding to your request for examples of additional bonus actions being able to be used by others.
I made no such request.
That maneuver is a prime example of one...where it is only by a wording technicality that one says they are using their bonus action.
In reality...the character USING that bonus action does NOTHING...in essence that bonus action is being USED to give an action option to another person.
Hence, the wording stays true to the rules in a way...but in reality...as the one granting the action really does NOTHING (one could say they do less actually), the other character gets that attack action.
It's technical fault...that enables them to still say one only gets ONE bonus action...when in truth they gain the benefit of a second bonus action (if they took their first bonus action already) in regards to the actual benefit of the maneuver.
No - the recipient is spending their reaction to act. They are not getting an extra bonus action.
It's incorrect to say the person using the feat does nothing - they are granting an ally the opportunity to utilise their reaction. That's very much something.
If we want to talk about iffy...there's also a ruling out there (that I haven't seen countered) that allows a fighter up to 8 attacks a round (briefly hinted at sometime when I was discussing 5e).
In what way is this iffy? A fighter can make way more attacks per round than anyone else - that's why they're so much better than a wizard at fighting, even though they have the same proficiency bonus.
Though that same author probably clarifies what get's wonky when we refer to things. What I may call a bonus action...may not necessarily strictly BE by the definition bonus actions all the time...in all honesty. 5e is very particular with it's words...but unfortunately that makes discussing it sometimes very difficult without slip ups of what words you are referring to...
This is correct and has been my main criticism of your critique. You have often referred to 'bonus actions' which aren't. That in itself isn't an issue - but in evaluating 'brokenness' of a system it's important to be accurate in these sorts of distinctions. Otherwise you can easily theorycraft your way to something outrageous but illegal.
So it is possible in all the 5e musings that I slipped up in terminology in what I was referring to as well...which probably does NOT help clarify things as much.
Right. It definitely doesn't and furthermore it leads to claims of 'things that are possible' or 'consequences of bounded accuracy' which are neither possible nor consequences.
Cheers. Including +5 from a shield spell (which last ones round) cast by a barbarian seems a little hard to justify.
The stacking of various manuals is another - presumably you can only benefit from one of them but has that been made explicit anywhere?
I haven't found anything that says you can't stack manuals, but it does seem a little odd to be doing that. Also, it's an extraordinarily generous GM for giving all those out to a single player (or enough so that the other players don't care that the barbarian is taking those ones). A few standard deviations outside the mean.
We seem to be in the realm of the books telling us to use our GM's judgment, and then claiming the entire system is bad because there might be a bad GM out there.
We seem to be in the realm of the books telling us to use our GM's judgment, and then claiming the entire system is bad because there might be a bad GM out there.
That has essentially been GreyWolfLord's thesis in this thread - it's a system heavily reliant on DM fiat so it can fall apart if it's DMed badly.
He puts that forth as a key idea that people coming from PF should bear in mind (and I agree with him).
The stacking of various manuals is another - presumably you can only benefit from one of them but has that been made explicit anywhere?I haven't found anything that says you can't stack manuals, but it does seem a little odd to be doing that. Also, it's an extraordinarily generous GM for giving all those out to a single player (or enough so that the other players don't care that the barbarian is taking those ones). A few standard deviations outside the mean.
I think there must be a limit (given the existence of bounded accuracy). If there is no limit then there's technically no limit to how high your stats can go and therefore bounded accuracy has been abandoned.
That's enough to satisfy me that you can only benefit from each manual once, but it would be nice if it were explicitly stated somewhere.
If we want to talk about iffy...there's also a ruling out there (that I haven't seen countered) that allows a fighter up to 8 attacks a round (briefly hinted at sometime when I was discussing 5e).In what way is this iffy? A fighter can make way more attacks per round than anyone else - that's why they're so much better than a wizard at fighting, even though they have the same proficiency bonus.
I can think of 7 attacks off the top of my head: 4 with Extra Attack + 1 from Two-Weapon Fighting (Bonus Action) + 1 from Haste (Additional Action) + 1 from Reaction (likely OA).
That's perfectly normal. A friend of mine also said the fighter can get 8, but didn't specify. This seems very normal to me, and not at all an abuse of the system.
My 5e Advice for Pathfinder Players? Make sure--absolutely sure--that whoever is introducing you to the system understands the fricken system well enough to use the system's terminology correctly.
That is all.
Actually, it's not all. Greywolf, I don't mean to get personal, but it's obvious that you aren't familiar enough with 5e to do the sort of critique you're attempting. Claiming the ruleset is at fault when you're still at a level of understanding where your description "gets wonky when we refer to things," just isn't helpful to the conversation.
If we want to talk about iffy...there's also a ruling out there (that I haven't seen countered) that allows a fighter up to 8 attacks a round (briefly hinted at sometime when I was discussing 5e).In what way is this iffy? A fighter can make way more attacks per round than anyone else - that's why they're so much better than a wizard at fighting, even though they have the same proficiency bonus.I can think of 7 attacks off the top of my head: 4 with Extra Attack + 1 from Two-Weapon Fighting (Bonus Action) + 1 from Haste (Additional Action) + 1 from Reaction (likely OA).
That's perfectly normal. A friend of mine also said the fighter can get 8, but didn't specify. This seems very normal to me, and not at all an abuse of the system.
I really don't think we should be counting reactions - partly because they don't happen in your turn but mainly because you don't get to give yourself one (pretty much ever, I think) it's something that sometimes happens to you such that you can act in someone else's turn - it seems qualitatively different, to me, than the other kinds of attacks.
The way people get to eight plus for the fighter is via action surge.
If we want to talk about iffy...there's also a ruling out there (that I haven't seen countered) that allows a fighter up to 8 attacks a round (briefly hinted at sometime when I was discussing 5e).In what way is this iffy? A fighter can make way more attacks per round than anyone else - that's why they're so much better than a wizard at fighting, even though they have the same proficiency bonus.I can think of 7 attacks off the top of my head: 4 with Extra Attack + 1 from Two-Weapon Fighting (Bonus Action) + 1 from Haste (Additional Action) + 1 from Reaction (likely OA).
That's perfectly normal. A friend of mine also said the fighter can get 8, but didn't specify. This seems very normal to me, and not at all an abuse of the system.
I really don't think we should be counting reactions - partly because they don't happen in your turn but mainly because you don't get to give yourself one (pretty much ever, I think) it's something that sometimes happens to you such that you can act in someone else's turn - it seems qualitatively different, to me, than the other kinds of attacks.
The way people get to eight plus for the fighter is via action surge.
Fair. And yes, I concur with the Reaction and will stop using it to count.
So my quick math allows the Fighter to get 5 attacks per round (4 from Extra Attack plus 1 from TWF Bonus Action), plus 4 more with Action surge (usable twice per short rest). Add in haste and it totals 10 in a single round. Seems perfectly normal and not at all an abuse of the rules.
I completely agree, Bookrat. It doesn't seem like game breaking imbalance so much as something cool a max level fighter can do twice per combat at most.
They can be devastating at high levels. They produce an outrageous amount of damage when they go nova.
As many of these came straight from WotC events and supposedly sanctioned DMs. It wasn't just one or two or a few either.
Just out of curiosity, which sanctioned events?
If you're talking about the Adventure League played at one of your LFGS, then that doesn't really count. If those are anything like PFS, then there is zero vetting processes for GMs. It's essentially whoever shows up and is willing to GM a game.
If you're talking about a convention, the vetting process is a little more rigorous, but not that much more. It's essentially whoever signs up in time and has a history of GMing that can be verified by the convention. But this isn't someone who's been verified and approved by WotC themselves.
As a company, I really doubt that WotC would have a GM vetting process where they send out people to run games - that would be a poor business decision and a waste of company resources; especially when there are so many people willing to volunteer to do it all for free without company involvement whatsoever. That said, they may have had some at specific conventions as part of their marketing campaign; but again, I doubt they'd be spending resources vetting every GM who volunteered. It just doesn't seem like a reasonable decision Hasbro or WotC would make.
My 5e Advice for Pathfinder Players? Make sure--absolutely sure--that whoever is introducing you to the system understands the fricken system well enough to use the system's terminology correctly.
That is all.
Actually, it's not all. Greywolf, I don't mean to get personal, but it's obvious that you aren't familiar enough with 5e to do the sort of critique you're attempting. Claiming the ruleset is at fault when you're still at a level of understanding where your description "gets wonky when we refer to things," just isn't helpful to the conversation.
I have a quick note right now because I don't have much time.
As I SAID...this isn't me. This is what turned me off in many ways by these things being being allowed. This is what turns people off about a system and causes them to call it broken.
But, it doesn't really matter, as the entire conversation has derailed at this point.
Which illustrates the point to a degree, but has probably unfortunately side tracked and gotten away from what I intended...which is sad. People will be VERY picky about the rules, even above running the game or saying...yes...that's what the DM needs to do...which makes all the rules lawyering extinct. Players will rules lawyer if you let them (and obviously...I do too...though granted, I HAVE done what almost no one else in the thread did...which was source the actual rule on page and book...there were a few references, but as a stupid rules lawyer does...I normally listed the rules/references).
But, in the end, it's all inconsequential and I have to end it because I'm quite literally running late!
Me, I have a plane to catch (really), which will allow you guys to talk about all the fun things about 5e for at least a week without my unhappy presence!
Which could be good for you...or bad.
But either way...Merry Christmas.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD
The other one, though, right? /sigh
The Wand of Cure Light Wounds has been replaced with something called The Short Rest.
You can rest for 1 hour and "Spend Hit Dice." What this means is you can take an hour doing some R&R and then you get to roll 1 or more hit dice (up to your level) equal to your class's hit die, add your Constitution modifier to each die rolled, and you regain that number of hit points.
You can spend a number of hit dice equal to your level. After a long rest you recover a number of expended dice equal to half your level.
If you are multi-classed and your different classes have different hit dice, you decide which kinds of hit dice you spend at a time.
You can even roll a hit die, check the result, and then decide if you want to spend 1 or more hit dice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Advice to new players: Learn the new action economy and terminology. They're a little different from Pathfinder.
And in the interests of clarity... let me ramble while my coffee brews.
Movement:
- In Pathfinder you have one Move Action a round, which you may use for a few things, such as getting up from prone, drawing a weapon, readying a shield or moving up to your speed. If you don't use it to actually move, you can instead make a five foot step.
- In 5E there is no movement "action". You can move your speed each turn, and doing certain things consumes movement - e.g. getting up from prone costs you half your movement.
Action:
- In Pathfinder you get one Standard Action per round and could take it to make a single attack, cast a spell, stow a weapon etc. To attack more than once you had to use a Full Round Action (see below). You can also use it to take another move action.
- In 5E you can make one action on your turn, which can include attacking (NB If you have the Extra Attack feature you can attack more than once as an action), casting a spell etc. You can do this at any point of your movement, including splitting attacks if so desired. You can also use it to Dash, which basically just gives you more movement (it's a double move).
Full Round Action:
- In Pathfinder, you could forgo taking your Move and Standard Action to take a Full Round Action, typically such as Charge (double move plus attack) or make a Full Attack (i.e. attack as many times as your BAB or TWF allows).
- In 5E, there is no Full Round Action. Full Attacks are made with an action, and off-hand attacks require your Bonus Action (see below).
Swift/Bonus Action:
- In Pathfinder you can make one Swift OR Immediate Action (see below) per round. Swift Actions aren't readily available, but include class abilities (e.g. Inquisitor's Bane) or Quickened spells. Regardless, you can only use one per round.
- In 5E you get one Bonus Action on your turn, which functions in a very similar fashion to the PF Swift Action. Certain abilities use it (Barbarians starting to rage, Sorcerer's casting quickened spells, using two-weapon fighting), and you get one per turn.
Immediate Action/Attack of Opportunity/Reaction:
- In Pathfinder you can make one Immediate Action or Swift Action per round. Immediate Actions include things like casting featherfall and certain class abilities. You may also make 1 Attack of Opportunity per round, or more with Combat Reflexes (plus other abilities that add AoOs), when an enemy provokes one from you.
- In 5E these two mechanics are rolled into one: The Reaction. You get one per round and can use it to make opportunity attacks, cast featherfall, use certain feat abilities (e.g. Shield Master) or class abilities (e.g. Uncanny Dodge). Regardless of the number of options you may have, you get but one per round. Ever.
Free Actions: Free actions are "free". Pathfinder uses the term to indicate that you can freely do something, 5E doesn't give it a name - the task just doesn't need an action.
Manipulating Objects:
- In Pathfinder there's a chart of actions required vs what times of objects manipulated. Typically they range from free actions to full round actions, though most wind up as Move actions (draw a weapon) or Standard Actions (sheath a weapon).
- In 5E you get one "Use An Object" action for free each turn, which does exactly what it sounds like: Open a door, draw a weapon, ready a shield. If you want to manipulate a second object in a turn, it burns your Action. NB: Activating magic items and potions do not count as 'objects' for this purpose. The action required is listed in the items description in the DMG.
Use An Object is for bigger actions, as you can generally open a door or draw a weapon for free while moving (see the "Interacting with Objects Around You" section on p.190 of the PHB).
An example of using an object is more like drinking a healing potion, applying a poison, or unleashing the ball bearings. Thief archetype Rogues have fast hands so they can use their Cunning Action for this stuff.
Use An Object is for bigger actions, as you can generally open a door or draw a weapon for free while moving (see the "Interacting with Objects Around You" section on p.190 of the PHB).
An example of using an object is more like drinking a healing potion, applying a poison, or unleashing the ball bearings. Thief archetype Rogues have fast hands so they can use their Cunning Action for this stuff.
In the example of of the healing potion, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken (though there may be a twitter from WotC disagreeing with me).
Given the actual description of the Use an Object action, plus the commentary that certain magic items always require an Action to use (PHB p190), plus the description of potions in the DMG stating they need an action to drink or administer to another (DMG p139) means that Fast Hands will not let you use a Bonus Action to down potions or trigger wands etc. And that's fair: Having a rogue splash 1 level of wizard to sneak attack with a rapier then bonus-action blast the enemy with a wand of lightning bolts could be considered a little excessive.
The key point of Fast Hands is that you can unlock a door (free) open a door (bonus), move through and then close a door (action) in one round, or similar feats of improved action economy.
Edit: Additionally, you can specifically interact with one feature of your environment (e.g. opening a door, drawing a sword) for free - a second such activity requires the Use an Object action. It might seem pedantic, but it's worth pointing out - the Use an Object action is for both more complex tasks that mandate an action, and taking a second action that would qualify for the freebie 'interact with your environment' (i.e most of them).
I think that means that using a magic item such as the healing potion is never a free action as opening a door/drawing a weapon is.
The entire thing about Cunning Action is that it allows you to do something that's normally an Action with your Bonus Action instead.
So, I'm quite sure that I've got it right (Fast Hands would be really disappointing the way you use it). I'm interested to know what other people think though, or if there's a clarification on twitter.
Edit: Okay, looked it up in the DMG and you're correct regarding magic items. I think that makes sense for stuff like wands (which could be very difficult to balance for Fast Hands), but stopping potions is wacky to me.
Edit 2: This guide does say you can use potions with it, while acknowledging the restriction on magic item activations. So maybe there is some provision for it.
Edit: Okay, looked it up in the DMG and you're correct regarding magic items. I think that makes sense for stuff like wands (which could be very difficult to balance for Fast Hands), but stopping potions is wacky to me.
Agreed on the potions. As one-shot items drinking one is a significant expenditure of resources in 5E (with the lack of magic mart), and it gives the Thief some in-combat abilities to make them viable alternatives to Assassins. It's not how the rules seem to read, but it's something I'd consider house-ruling were I GMing for a thief rogue.
Wands though? No. Sorcerers pay heavily for Quicken and it chews through both slots and Sorcery Points to spam it... Wands are great in 5E, but should (in my opinion) always need an action to use.
Edit 2: This guide does say you can use potions with it, while acknowledging the restriction on magic item activations. So maybe there is some provision for it.
Could be - and if someone finds it I'd also be happy to see it.
I think the reason potions are okay is that the DMG mentions "items which require an action to activate" as being explicitly not an instance of the "Use an Object" action and therefore not viable choices for fast hands. The implication being that those which don't require an action are legal choices (as otherwise, why mention the exclusion of the former type?)
All the wands explicitly state they require an action to be used, however the potions don't (they generally say "when you drink this" or similar).
I think the reason potions are okay is that the DMG mentions "items which require an action to activate" as being explicitly not an instance of the "Use an Object" action and therefore not viable choices for fast hands. The implication being that those which don't require an action are legal choices (as otherwise, why mention the exclusion of the former type?)
All the wands explicitly state they require an action to be used, however the potions don't (they generally say "when you drink this" or similar).
Sort of:
Hence, if it's been clarified officially to make potions okay with Fast Hands... that'd be cool.
EDIT: Deleted, since I was wrong. :p
Turns out, it has been clarified and the ruling is you can't use Cunning Action to drink a potion:
I think another important difference to look out for is that in 5e some of the skills are found in the equipment section rather than the ability score section, because they are tied to tools. What used to be disable device is now proficiency with thieves tools, what used to be the Craft is now proficiency with the various artisan's tools. Disguise is proficiency with Disguise kits and Instrument based Perform skills are now proficiency with various musical instruments.
There are rules for encumbrance, but since you can carry about 15 pounds per point of your Strength score, they almost never come up.
It's like the perfect compromise of totally ignoring encumbrance rules all together and having rules for it for the 1% of the population that likes tallying up the weight of all their gear.
I'm (barely) not judging.... ;-)
There are rules for encumbrance, but since you can carry about 15 pounds per point of your Strength score, they almost never come up.
It's like the perfect compromise of totally ignoring encumbrance rules all together and having rules for it for the 1% of the population that likes tallying up the weight of all their gear.
I'm (barely) not judging.... ;-)
imo they were so concerned with making it something you don't worry about they didn't even try with the encumbrance rules. An average gnome (strength 10) can carry 3 other gnomes (40 pounds each) while fully equipped in light armour and weaponsand be just as nimble as if it didn't have his whole family literally on his back.
I find in game play carrying capacity and encumbrance inevitably becomes important and interesting for tension in a scene, but only at certain times.
- dragging a friend to safety
- climbing
- swimming
Currently one way a party climbs a rope is everyone just tie on to the guy with athletics and they shimmy up the rope with a bunch of PC's hanging off them - like fezzik up the cliffs of insanity.
(Except of course ropes can't hold much weight - they "burst" with a dc17 strength check so they probably can't even hold the weight of one normal unencumbered person!)
I would like some of these smaller details to have been kept simple but have had a little more thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why gnomes are so often (EDIT: awesome). 3 can travel 24 hours per day. It's why their slow speed isn't that big of a deal.
;-)