Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Sep 2017
Location: Norway
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Feel free to corect me ...
But does not Bard, Paladin or Monk also do some "kind of" magic? O_o

I would say that this statement at best exclude Barbarian quite certainly (wich is odd imho, since i would expect them to come first ... they seem easiest to implement), but beyond that ... nothing. laugh

Larian reversing their backstab/flanking advantage homebrew could be indicative of them working on the Barbarian and arriving at a very late epiphany that they were screwing Barbarians and their Reckless Attack over with it. On the other hand, it could also be that Larian simply realized their homebrew promoted shitty gameplay, but given their fondness for adding way too many highly questionable homebrew additions - the former is more likely.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Feel free to corect me ...
But does not Bard, Paladin or Monk also do some "kind of" magic? O_o

I would say that this statement at best exclude Barbarian quite certainly (wich is odd imho, since i would expect them to come first ... they seem easiest to implement), but beyond that ... nothing. laugh

Larian reversing their backstab/flanking advantage homebrew could be indicative of them working on the Barbarian and arriving at a very late epiphany that they were screwing Barbarians and their Reckless Attack over with it. On the other hand, it could also be that Larian simply realized their homebrew promoted shitty gameplay, but given their fondness for adding way too many highly questionable homebrew additions - the former is more likely.
It wasent homebrew. It was a literal interpretation of the rules. If you attack someone who cant see you (for example if you are behind them) you have advantage.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Larian reversing their backstab/flanking advantage homebrew could be indicative of them working on the Barbarian and arriving at a very late epiphany that they were screwing Barbarians and their Reckless Attack over with it. On the other hand, it could also be that Larian simply realized their homebrew promoted shitty gameplay, but given their fondness for adding way too many highly questionable homebrew additions - the former is more likely.
It wasent homebrew. It was a literal interpretation of the rules. If you attack someone who cant see you (for example if you are behind them) you have advantage.
Standing behind someone doesn't mean they can't see you. PHB pg 177: "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you" and "you can't hide from a creature that can see you."

The DMG has optional rules for Facing, further clarifying that according to base rules a creature is assumed to be constantly looking in every direction. And Larian's implementation didn't include all of the other components of this optional rule, such as using a reaction to change the direction you're facing.

RAW, even standing behind total cover doesn't grant you advantage on your next attack. You have to specifically take the Hide action in order to be hidden, and only a successful Stealth check against the enemy's passive perception will you get advantage on your attack.

Edit: The last sentence ^ is incorrect. While standing behind total cover doesn't grant advantage (because peeking out makes you visible), you don't need the Hide action to get advantage. Just to be unseen.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 06/10/21 04:35 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Larian reversing their backstab/flanking advantage homebrew could be indicative of them working on the Barbarian and arriving at a very late epiphany that they were screwing Barbarians and their Reckless Attack over with it. On the other hand, it could also be that Larian simply realized their homebrew promoted shitty gameplay, but given their fondness for adding way too many highly questionable homebrew additions - the former is more likely.
It wasent homebrew. It was a literal interpretation of the rules. If you attack someone who cant see you (for example if you are behind them) you have advantage.
Standing behind someone doesn't mean they can't see you. PHB pg 177: "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you" and "you can't hide from a creature that can see you."

The DMG has optional rules for Facing, further clarifying that according to base rules a creature is assumed to be constantly looking in every direction. And Larian's implementation didn't include all of the other components of this optional rule, such as using a reaction to change the direction you're facing.

RAW, even standing behind total cover doesn't grant you advantage on your next attack. You have to specifically take the Hide action in order to be hidden, and only a successful Stealth check against the enemy's passive perception will you get advantage on your attack.
These are seperate things. Beeing aware of someone and SEEING them are not the same thing. If im in the aisle at my local super market and I can hear someone behind me in the que, I know the person is there. I cant see them though because I dont have eyes in the back of my head.

Generally speaking at tables DM's will rule that unless you were hidden when combat started they will be aware of you. But RAW nothing in the rules prevent the whole 'stand behind a person and they cant see you' bit. The optional rules for facing are just that. Optional. Without them there is no such thing as facing or outflanking. Rogues dont need to outflank or be behind a character to do suprise attacks either. Another target hostile to their target within 5 feet is enough in 5th ed.

Page 177 refers to beeing hidden and covers ambushes more then anything else. Its rules for use of stealth. How to stay hidden and how you can lose it. Attack someone from hiding and you got a turn of suprise combat, which is devastating I might add; which is the main reason why players might want to do it.

Page 195 top left (part of the 'unseen attackers and targets' section handles attacking someone who cant see you: "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on the attack."

When you attack someone while invisible for example you still have advantage. Because they cant see you. If you lose invisibility after the attack you dont keep the benefit, but thats besides the point. People can be aware of your presence and still get hit by advantage because they cant see you. Likewise, people can be aware of you but be blinded. Same thing, they might hear you or heck even smell you. But they cant SEE you. Advantage on the attack.

So uhm. No. Larian had it right and every group that says that people attacking others from the rear dont get disadvantage are actually house ruling it. If you go strictly by whats written. But every DM is free to play it as they feel fit. Just moving behind a person and getting free advantage is way to powerfull id say so I agree with them toning it down. But RAW. They had it right.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius
The optional rules for facing are just that. Optional. Without them there is no such thing as facing or outflanking. Rogues dont need to outflank or be behind a character to do suprise attacks either. Another target hostile to their target within 5 feet is enough in 5th ed.
Exactly my point. Because the Facing rules are optional, the base rules have no facing. Thus, there is no "behind" a target. In 5e combatants are constantly moving - and importantly, turning - around. While supermarket you isn't able to literally see out of the back of your head, 5e characters in 6 seconds will be looking around and aware of all of their (visible and audible) surroundings, including behind them.

True, I was mistaken about the requiring a hide check to get advantage. As long as you're unseen you still get the advantage. But this doesn't change the fact that simply standing behind an enemy doesn't grant advantage. Because there is no "behind" in base 5e rules. This is part of the reason why stealth in BG3 is so cheesy: enemies cannot detect a stealthed player unless the player crosses their sight cone, whereas in 5e you shouldn't be able to hide in plain sight.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 06/10/21 04:40 PM.
Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Tuco
I'm also fairly sure that wasn't an accidental misunderstanding and that Larian was deliberately misleading/trolling its audience, so who knows. Maybe it's the same here.
Larian could easily have another Panel From Hell scenario where Sven dressed as a wizard casts Dimension Door to accidently find himself in a fight between two Barbarians. It'd be in line with the shenanigans from the other PFHs.

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Page 195 top left (part of the 'unseen attackers and targets' section handles attacking someone who cant see you: "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on the attack."

When you attack someone while invisible for example you still have advantage. Because they cant see you. If you lose invisibility after the attack you dont keep the benefit, but thats besides the point. People can be aware of your presence and still get hit by advantage because they cant see you. Likewise, people can be aware of you but be blinded. Same thing, they might hear you or heck even smell you. But they cant SEE you. Advantage on the attack.

So uhm. No. Larian had it right and every group that says that people attacking others from the rear dont get disadvantage are actually house ruling it. If you go strictly by whats written. But every DM is free to play it as they feel fit. Just moving behind a person and getting free advantage is way to powerfull id say so I agree with them toning it down. But RAW. They had it right.
Quote
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

It's heavily intended that you have to be hidden, invisible, or in darkness for these rules to apply. There are a lot of single sentences that can be taken out of context.

Also Larian's backstab was not one-to-one with the vision cone, so no Larian was not applying a "can't be seen, get advantage". It was very clearly borrowed code from Divinity: Original Sin 2.
It's the same reason why NPCs/Enemies currently have no sense of sound/hearing, borrowed code from Divinity: Original Sin 2.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Can we return to original topic, instead of making this 1000th "backstab autoadvantage bad" topic? :-/
Especialy since that is no longer in game? laugh


Short coment on my English. smile

Anyway ... i cast Eldritch Blast!
Joined: Dec 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
I would love the new class to be bard, simply because it's my favorite class. But if we take the comment literary, I think, it's sorcerer, which would be ok with me too, but I feel a bit bad for a the paladin fans out there.
They said, that the patch will be big, so depending on how much new stuff it brings (personally I hope for some story and maybe one tiny little level), I might actually fire up the game again. I was a bit burnt out lately.


"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."

Doctor Who
Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Originally Posted by Seraphael
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Feel free to corect me ...
But does not Bard, Paladin or Monk also do some "kind of" magic? O_o

I would say that this statement at best exclude Barbarian quite certainly (wich is odd imho, since i would expect them to come first ... they seem easiest to implement), but beyond that ... nothing. laugh

Larian reversing their backstab/flanking advantage homebrew could be indicative of them working on the Barbarian and arriving at a very late epiphany that they were screwing Barbarians and their Reckless Attack over with it. On the other hand, it could also be that Larian simply realized their homebrew promoted shitty gameplay, but given their fondness for adding way too many highly questionable homebrew additions - the former is more likely.
It wasent homebrew. It was a literal interpretation of the rules. If you attack someone who cant see you (for example if you are behind them) you have advantage.
There is actually an optional rule for flanking which grants advantage only if at least two attackers are ACTIVELY in opposite sides of the enemy. So walking behind an enemy would not grant advantage.

Last edited by Danielbda; 06/10/21 06:11 PM.
Joined: Oct 2021
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2021
Been lurking hear for the past year… first post:

I’m going in a completely different direction on my prediction for Patch 6. Big update - Crafting. New class - Artificer. Who else “makes magic”? They have also had the crafting materials in the game from the beginning with the ability to grab plants, herbs, empty potion bottles, hammers, etc. At some point they are going to fill that out. Why not now? It would also go along with Sven’s statement that he wants to prioritize implementing new systems over new classes. Anyway, that is my prediction and I would welcome it.

Joined: May 2021
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2021
Sorcerer!!!!! Metamagic!!!! I want to try it out!!

(I hope it is fun)

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Artificer is not in the game, according to everything we know so far from Larian.

Joined: Jul 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by smberg
Been lurking hear for the past year… first post:

I’m going in a completely different direction on my prediction for Patch 6. Big update - Crafting. New class - Artificer. Who else “makes magic”? They have also had the crafting materials in the game from the beginning with the ability to grab plants, herbs, empty potion bottles, hammers, etc. At some point they are going to fill that out. Why not now? It would also go along with Sven’s statement that he wants to prioritize implementing new systems over new classes. Anyway, that is my prediction and I would welcome it.
Given that features from the PHB might be left out of the full release I doubt there'll be any expansion classes in the game.

Joined: Dec 2017
F
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
F
Joined: Dec 2017
Salami Sorcerer of Doom.

"Thou can calleth me CHORIZO!!1"

Nobody expects the Wurstfachverkäuferin.

Last edited by Firesong; 06/10/21 07:13 PM.

Larian, please improve QoL / UX.

And give us Halsin as companion, please.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
What I think magical means: Sorcerer or the annoying Bard to be added

What I wish it means: a proper reaction system and/or day and night cycle, with one of the missing classes added

What I expect Larian means: the stupid salami

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Bard or Sorceror means new mechanisms in the game which may go some way to addressing imbalances in the game, hopefully.

Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I hope the goddamn forced meme about salami isn't going to stick around for too long, even if somehow the subreddit is already having a fucking field day with it.


Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Page 195 top left (part of the 'unseen attackers and targets' section handles attacking someone who cant see you: "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on the attack."

When you attack someone while invisible for example you still have advantage. Because they cant see you. If you lose invisibility after the attack you dont keep the benefit, but thats besides the point. People can be aware of your presence and still get hit by advantage because they cant see you. Likewise, people can be aware of you but be blinded. Same thing, they might hear you or heck even smell you. But they cant SEE you. Advantage on the attack.

So uhm. No. Larian had it right and every group that says that people attacking others from the rear dont get disadvantage are actually house ruling it. If you go strictly by whats written. But every DM is free to play it as they feel fit. Just moving behind a person and getting free advantage is way to powerfull id say so I agree with them toning it down. But RAW. They had it right.
Quote
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

It's heavily intended that you have to be hidden, invisible, or in darkness for these rules to apply. There are a lot of single sentences that can be taken out of context.

Also Larian's backstab was not one-to-one with the vision cone, so no Larian was not applying a "can't be seen, get advantage". It was very clearly borrowed code from Divinity: Original Sin 2.
It's the same reason why NPCs/Enemies currently have no sense of sound/hearing, borrowed code from Divinity: Original Sin 2.
It is not heavily implied that you have to be hidden. Now you are the one who it taking things out of context.

The part covers attacking someone when they cant see you, or beeing attacked while you cant see them. No where does it state that you need to be hidden to gain that benefit. It is the most common (and easy) way to gain it however.

Id love the sorcerer actually. Specially dragon sorcerer at least from RP perspective is interesting. Even if combat wise its not all that

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Page 195 top left (part of the 'unseen attackers and targets' section handles attacking someone who cant see you: "When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on the attack."

When you attack someone while invisible for example you still have advantage. Because they cant see you. If you lose invisibility after the attack you dont keep the benefit, but thats besides the point. People can be aware of your presence and still get hit by advantage because they cant see you. Likewise, people can be aware of you but be blinded. Same thing, they might hear you or heck even smell you. But they cant SEE you. Advantage on the attack.

So uhm. No. Larian had it right and every group that says that people attacking others from the rear dont get disadvantage are actually house ruling it. If you go strictly by whats written. But every DM is free to play it as they feel fit. Just moving behind a person and getting free advantage is way to powerfull id say so I agree with them toning it down. But RAW. They had it right.
Quote
Combatants often try to escape their foes' notice by hiding, casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness.

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

It's heavily intended that you have to be hidden, invisible, or in darkness for these rules to apply. There are a lot of single sentences that can be taken out of context.

Also Larian's backstab was not one-to-one with the vision cone, so no Larian was not applying a "can't be seen, get advantage". It was very clearly borrowed code from Divinity: Original Sin 2.
It's the same reason why NPCs/Enemies currently have no sense of sound/hearing, borrowed code from Divinity: Original Sin 2.
It is not heavily implied that you have to be hidden. Now you are the one who it taking things out of context.

The part covers attacking someone when they cant see you, or beeing attacked while you cant see them. No where does it state that you need to be hidden to gain that benefit. It is the most common (and easy) way to gain it however.

Id love the sorcerer actually. Specially dragon sorcerer at least from RP perspective is interesting. Even if combat wise its not all that

Hidden, invisible, or in darkness is more than "hidden". This is why I directly quoted the PHB, where the rule is meant to be taken all together. An enemy can turn their head and can perceive around themselves. It's why the rules for Sneak Attack are written as they are. It's why the optional rule of Facing is written as such:

Optional Rule: Facing
If you want the precision of knowing which way a creature is facing, consider using this optional rule.

Whenever a creature ends its move, it can change its facing. Each creature has a front arc (the direction it faces), left and right side arcs, and a rear arc. A creature can also change its facing as a reaction when any other creature moves.

A creature can normally target only creatures in its front or side arcs. It can’t see into its rear arc. This means an attacker in the creature’s rear arc makes attack rolls against it with advantage.

Shields apply their bonus to AC only against attacks from the front arc or the same side arc as the shield. For example, a fighter with a shield on the left arm can use it only against attacks from the front and left arcs.

Feel free to determine that not all creatures have every type of arc. For example, an amorphous ochre jelly could treat all of its arcs as front ones, while a hydra might have three front arcs and one rear one.

On squares, you pick one side of a creature’s space as the direction it is facing. Draw a diagonal line outward from each corner of this side to determine the squares in its front arc. The opposite side of the space determines its rear arc in the same way. The remaining spaces to either side of the creature form its side arcs.

On hexes, determining the front, rear, and side arcs requires more judgment. Pick one side of the creature’s space and create a wedge shape expanding out from there for the front arc, and another on the opposite side of the creature for the rear arc. The remaining spaces to either side of the creature are its side arcs.

A square or hex might be in more than one arc, depending on how you draw the lines from a creature’s space. If more than half of a square or hex lies in one arc, it is in that arc. If it is split exactly down the middle, use this rule: if half of it lies in the front arc, it’s in that arc. If half of it is in a side arc and the rear arc, it’s in the side arc.

To not be seen by an enemy requires more than walking behind them. If you move behind an enemy, they turn to face you. Unless the table adopts an optional rule.

If you have something credible to go with, feel free to DM me.

Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5