|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: May 2014
|
It is because the core 5e follows restrictly the design of bounded accuracy, and adding more tactical aspect to combat. You need to shove someone prone, or use spells like Faerie Fire to get advantage, not brainlessly walk to someone's back since advantage is very very strong. While here it's just free for melee attackers. What you said about using surrounding and circumstances is valid for high ground, but not for backstabbing. You DONT need surrounding or circumstiance to get backstab, you JUST walk behind a dude and attack him, no AoO, no resource, just free. That's not entirely true, at least for movement that starts within the AoO range of the enemy. If my Rogue is standing right in front of an enemy and uses Jump to leap overhead to their rear for a backstab, it will trigger an AoO attack from that enemy. Same thing with a fighter who starts within AoO range and just circles around to the rear of the enemy for advantage. That also triggers an AoO attack. I see both things frequently in this game. The problem right now is movement starting outside the enemy's AoO trigger range, and then entering that range while jumping or moving around to the rear. That should trigger an AoO and it doesn't. The only "free" melee attack from the rear should be when taking a path that starts behind the enemy, approaching from the back. I start to believe you never played the game, or maybe just not very careful. Neither jump nor walk within enemies AoO range will trigger AoO in this game dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I like that they implemented the optional facing rule from the PHB. It adds a little more action to the game, and considerations.
On the flip side they are also good at using the disadvantage on darkness rules etc.
This is one of the "not like 5e" rules that I like. (Besides it IS a 5e rule, that many just don't use). At least Advantage speeds up combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I like that they implemented the optional facing rule from the PHB. It adds a little more action to the game, and considerations.
On the flip side they are also good at using the disadvantage on darkness rules etc.
This is one of the "not like 5e" rules that I like. (Besides it IS a 5e rule, that many just don't use). At least Advantage speeds up combat. But they not implemented the facing rule. If they really did, enemies should use their reaction to change orientation when you are moving around them. This is quite important part of the facing rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I like that they implemented the optional facing rule from the PHB. It adds a little more action to the game, and considerations.
On the flip side they are also good at using the disadvantage on darkness rules etc.
This is one of the "not like 5e" rules that I like. (Besides it IS a 5e rule, that many just don't use). At least Advantage speeds up combat. But they not implemented the facing rule. If they really did, enemies should use their reaction to change orientation when you are moving around them. This is quite important part of the facing rule. I don't really agree it's very important, and one of the parts of the rule that is a bit iffy considering how movement works in DnD. The facing rule always end up being the "no attacks of opportunity rule" honestly. At the table top my group reversed it: You can use your reaction to preform a help action. That way you still get some access to advantage. Of course one can argue if advantage is needed etc. I personally think it makes the game more fun to play as it is in BG3 than without advantage. We can argue about if it's "realistic" but trunbased is always an abstraction anyways. To me it's the easiest implementation that works, and adds some dynamics to combat, where movement and placement matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: May 2014
|
I like that they implemented the optional facing rule from the PHB. It adds a little more action to the game, and considerations.
On the flip side they are also good at using the disadvantage on darkness rules etc.
This is one of the "not like 5e" rules that I like. (Besides it IS a 5e rule, that many just don't use). At least Advantage speeds up combat. But they not implemented the facing rule. If they really did, enemies should use their reaction to change orientation when you are moving around them. This is quite important part of the facing rule. I don't really agree it's very important, and one of the parts of the rule that is a bit iffy considering how movement works in DnD. The facing rule always end up being the "no attacks of opportunity rule" honestly. At the table top my group reversed it: You can use your reaction to preform a help action. That way you still get some access to advantage. Of course one can argue if advantage is needed etc. I personally think it makes the game more fun to play as it is in BG3 than without advantage. We can argue about if it's "realistic" but trunbased is always an abstraction anyways. To me it's the easiest implementation that works, and adds some dynamics to combat, where movement and placement matters. When u mean movement matters, do u mean walk to enemy back every turn? Then why not just give advantage face to face then. If you are repeating it every time, there's no tactical depth in it, and also enemy is not clever enough to do the same movement, it's more like exploiting an oversight.
Last edited by dunehunter; 26/10/20 02:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
[quote=Aurgelmir][quote=Zahur][quote=Aurgelmir]
When u mean movement matters, do u mean walk to enemy back every turn? Then why not just give advantage face to face then. If you are repeating it every time, there's no tactical depth in it, and also enemy is not clear enough to do the same movement, it's more like exploiting an oversight. Well yes, but thing is, right now there's another house rule that's making it matter less, which I'd rather see them remove: "Everyone get's cunning actions" This is the big problem, and what makes the advantage rule silly. Take away cunning actions from everyone, and now you have to either take the Mobile Feat (which isn't working right now) or decide if you want to try and move to the back of that one monster and risk an attack of opportunity from the other one you are in close combat with. The problem isn't really with the "exploit" as you call it, but rather the poor design decision on the combat actions side. As for the "opponent's don't do it" argument. Sure, to me that's a difficulty level thing. At normal levels they might not do it, but at higher difficulty levels they could start doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: May 2014
|
[quote=Aurgelmir][quote=Zahur][quote=Aurgelmir]
When u mean movement matters, do u mean walk to enemy back every turn? Then why not just give advantage face to face then. If you are repeating it every time, there's no tactical depth in it, and also enemy is not clear enough to do the same movement, it's more like exploiting an oversight. Well yes, but thing is, right now there's another house rule that's making it matter less, which I'd rather see them remove: "Everyone get's cunning actions" This is the big problem, and what makes the advantage rule silly. Take away cunning actions from everyone, and now you have to either take the Mobile Feat (which isn't working right now) or decide if you want to try and move to the back of that one monster and risk an attack of opportunity from the other one you are in close combat with. The problem isn't really with the "exploit" as you call it, but rather the poor design decision on the combat actions side. As for the "opponent's don't do it" argument. Sure, to me that's a difficulty level thing. At normal levels they might not do it, but at higher difficulty levels they could start doing it. On this i agree with ya. cunning action need to be fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
