|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Attacking someone from the rear is already in the rules. If you attack someone who cants see you; you get advantage. Its not taken from Divinity at all. This is the optional facing rule the other guy just posted here. But even that rule allows following: " A creature can also change its facing as a reaction when any other creature move.". You are not supposed to just walk or jump around somebody's back and suddenly get the strongest buff in the game. I agree something like ±1d4 or flat ±2 for highground should be fine. That way spells which gives you advantage still hold its value. E.g you can combine high ground with Guiding Bolt. Or True Strike, while bad spell, still would have at least some sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
still on the opinion that it can be simple:
keep the range gain and advantages for things that depend on gravity: (arrows, throwables)
for things that doesn't depend on gravity(spells) keep only the range gain
no rocket science and things will make sense again
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
Facing doesn't really work in a turn based system.
I mean it's stupid how many attacks you can do from "behind" before the target gets a chance to react, especially when anyone can just jump there.
That's what I do to enemies anyway. They are in front of me but I can still get 3 characters to attack "from behind" before they can turn. And then I just jump behind again and repeat.
An abstracted flanking rule would work much better. Second attacker on the same target gets +2 ab, and every attacker after that. The spirit of the rule is that being ganged upon is bad. Target should automatically turn to face the first attacker if they are aware of them.
You shouldn't get backstabs or flanking bonuses in 1v1 combat ever. Unless an ability stuns or blinds or whatever.
If target isn't aware of the attacker, you should get advantage regardless of facing.
Last edited by 1varangian; 23/10/20 11:23 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Let me get this straight, advantage and disadvantage is rolling two d20s, advantage takes the high and disadvantage takes the low, right?
Kind of sad but I thought advantage/disadvantage was actually a +2/-2 feature, rather have that.
Jumping/disengage should be imo a standard action, ontop of the already movement since its both.
Last edited by fallenj; 23/10/20 02:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Introducing the Cover rules from 5e PHB page 196. For a rough summary, shooting "through" another creature (ally or enemy) provides your target with +2 to its AC, if the creature is covering at least 1/2 of the target. So, as an example:
X -> YZ
If X shoots at Y, X rolls their attack as normal.
If X shoots at Z, Z gets a bonus of +2 to its AC
Implementing this solves the problems created by granting Advantage/Disadvantage to attacking from/against a target above/below you. For starters, it's less of a mechanical bonus or penalty to the Attack roll, which makes the impact on combat of even small changes in height less pronounced. Solving that problem can trickle down to realigning enemy AC/HP values with what they should be in the monster's stat block, which solves a whole host of other issues.
However, it still provides a reward/penalty for use of the 3d terrain. Using the previous example, if X is 10 meters up in the air, and shoots at Z, Z would likely not receive any bonus to its AC because X is high enough so that Y isn't blocking at least 1/2 of Z. Moreover, X will have the reward of being able to Move to the edge of the cliff/roof/etc., shoot, then move backwards to possibly gain Cover from whatever is providing their height advantage. +1 Please implement it like this. This is just better, than the current solution. The current granting of advantage for ranged attackers devalues other options to gain advantage, because it's so extremly simple to gain. Easy ranged advantage indirectly devalues all other options to gain advantage. This is what makes it seem, on the surface, that shoving, grappling and other combat manoeuvres need a decrease in cost from full action to bonus action. The current settup also strengthens ranged attacks, an already strong combat option (If have seen it argued that ranged attacks are strictly superior to close quarters combat in D&D). This tilts combat more extremely in the direction of ranged attacks. Well set up ambushes gain an obscene boost.
Last edited by Akunu; 23/10/20 03:39 PM. Reason: typos
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2019
|
Unfortunately, they've already said they wouldn't implement cover due to the difficulty. Presently, this unholy union of DOS systems and 5e is quite a mess. They really need someone on their team that understands how 5e abilities interact with one another, these zany design choices make a host of abilities and spells meaningless, the waste of an action and precious resource for a benefit that can be gained just a bit of movement or entirely for free. The entire function of these spells and abilities, some of them keystone abilities of the classes, is to grant advantage at some resource cost, or to provide something unique that only their class can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
This height in BG3 is horrible..its not in the D&D 5th rule book so please don't add stuff that doesn't exist.. Please just stick to the game you're supposedly designing around 5th edition, not some Divinity thing, thanks.
Last edited by DanteYoda; 24/10/20 03:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2020
|
Height / Below could be tweaked to either :
a) give +2 or -2
b) give only once per target the Advantage / Disadvantage.
The tactical concept is interesting, but it is too huge a factor in the current form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: May 2014
|
I think elevation giving advantage only makes sense. Also positioning benefits are in rules. Page 252... So I am not even sure what exactly you're so offended about with Larian using the rule. ![[Linked Image]](https://i.gyazo.com/7722962bddc2c1432e2fd378b5da85a1.png) Three reasons: 1. They didn't actually implement that rule (only the Advantage part and not the other 90% of the optional rule) 2. No one uses that. Some DMs use Flanking, some don't. I've literally never seen a DM use Facing. 3. They literally used the same mechanics as "Backstabbing" in DoS 2 but didn't include the ground indicator to know if you're going to get it or not. I lied, 4 reasons: 4. Advantage for positioning yourself behind someone is drastically overpowered, and it cheapens other sources of providing advantage. This gives melee combat an extreme amount of "sameyness" where the objectively best choice, each turn, is to circle-strafe your opponent to get Advantage, then they do the same to you. It does not matter who uses it or not - it's official in print and everyone can use it at will. Reality is that the rule is there. It also does not need 100% carbon copy down to last letter, but what they do is close enough. As you can see attacking from behind gives both advantage and -2AC in case creature has a shield. All fine and dandy by rules. That's certainly much better than people here meming, as if it's some sort of never heard of thing completely unrelated to 5e, when in fact it's bloody there in print black on white page 252. It also does not matter if it's overpowered or any other silly reason in your head-canon - the rule is there. Take it to WoTC if you think it's so busted, not to Larian. The guy lists 4 good reason why this should not be implemented, but you just say because it is an optional rule so they can use it? We are not arguing if they can or not, but if they should or not dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I like the height stuff, sorry  It works both ways and mobs try to gain the high ground as much as you do. They also know (when they can see you) to run for cover. Sometimes it's not that easy to ascend to higher ground depending on your position. I'm not a D&D purist so I don't really care as long as it's a fun mechanic. I actually spend a good bit of time trying to sneak in to the best possible spot to start an attack. If you get rid of this it just becomes a bit more boring; to me at least. Higher ground is also a legitimate combat tactic in order to gain an advantage over your opponent. Not all terrain is created equal and I like that Larian baked this concept in to the game. Any suggestion of 1-time use just makes no sense. What I get 1 strike that takes advantage but standing in the same place my second strike has no effect? That sounds more like a balancing act than something that makes sense in the real world. It makes about as much sense as resting at camp under the moonlight while you are traveling through the underdark 
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
YES! 5e cover system and no adv/disadv from height please.
|
|
|
|
|
