D&D 5E 5e Hobgoblin stat block

[Ruin Explorer]

Poorly-explained... I mean, I think the reasoning is fairly obvious. Hobgoblins work very well together and employ teamwork. I dunno, I don't really need an explanation for that one.

I sure do! It's way, way beyond "work very well together and employ teamwork", which is something adventurers could certainly do. +2d6 damage? Every single time? No conditions beyond adjacency? No extra actions used? It's more than a Thief will do on a backstab until what, 4 or 5? That's huge!

That's got to be ultra-specialized training, at the very least.

I'll grant you that the first time a group encounters hobgoblins, this ability may be a bit of a surprise, but I don't find this problematic, either. When the pcs first encounter any monster, they should be wary of surprises. I'd expect most initial encounters with any monster to be harder than the pcs expect until they realize what works and what doesn't.

This is a counter-intuitive and difficult-to-rationalize ability that is quite likely to drop PCs very quickly, quite possibly without them understanding how it works.

Well, I totally disagree with you here.

Sure, if they know about it and understand it, that stuff works to a limited extent (Thunderwave is unlikely to help in the way you think), but you've entirely missed my point - I feel that's unlikely that they will know about it at the levels where Hobgoblins are a big threat.

What do you want to bet on the default push maneuver, btw? Because I'm betting not. It wouldn't help, either, in most situations, due to the way moves, OAs and so on work in 5E. They just need to move to the right place then attack.

It's less about expectations and more about laziness. If the player hasn't read his list of class abilities and potential feats and needs me to answer a question he can find out by looking up his options himself, he deserves to bleed from the nose.

No, he doesn't, and that's the sort of thing you wouldn't even dare say to his face, let alone do. No-one deserves violence for not knowing a game backwards. That's messed-up. Seriously.

He couldn't even HAVE a Feat at these levels, either, Agamon. What do you think we're playing, 3E?

 

[Thaumaturge]

I think there's a good chance something like sneak attack, which would approximate the Hobgoblin's ability, will be something PCs can access with a feat. Just like feats give characters access to spells.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think there's a good chance something like sneak attack, which would approximate the Hobgoblin's ability, will be something PCs can access with a feat. Just like feats give characters access to spells.

Thaumaturge.

You don't get a Feat until level 4/5, dude. This is 5E.

Sneak attack doesn't do this damage until you're level 5, either (and I doubt a Feat would get it at full power). If this was +1d6, it wouldn't be as ridiculous.

 

[Thaumaturge]

You don't get a Feat until level 4/5, dude. This is 5E.

Sneak attack doesn't do this damage until you're level 5, either (and I doubt a Feat would get it at full power). If this was +1d6, it wouldn't be as ridiculous.

I understand. And there's little chance the feat will provide the ability at the same power as the class that gets it (at least in the same timeframe).

But it's an option.

And I remember (incorrectly?) reading/hearing/speculating some racial bonuses (bonii) could be traded for a feat at character creation. If that's possible, even houseruled, one could have been raised by hobgoblins and learned their way of fighting.

Or not.

For me, working within the (perceived) framework of the (not yet released) rules is more interesting than railing at said framework.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Agamon]

No, he doesn't, and that's the sort of thing you wouldn't even dare say to his face, let alone do. No-one deserves violence for not knowing a game backwards. That's messed-up. Seriously.

I'm not sure if you're trying to up-level me in the joke department, or if this is somehow actually serious. If the former, bravo, you got me. If the latter, chill pill, dude. The only person I've ever punched was my brother when we were kids (and I only had to do that once )

He couldn't even HAVE a Feat at these levels, either, Agamon. What do you think we're playing, 3E?

And what are "these levels" you speak of? To learn something means to become proficient in the future, because, hey, learning.

I guess your setting could have fairy godmothers in them.

PC: "Cool! I wanna do that!"

Fairy Godmother: "Your wish is my command!" *hits PC over the head with a wand*

PC: "Awesome, I can do whatever I want now!"

Fairy Godmother: "Don't thank me, thank your dumbass DM!"

 

[amerigoV]

Why? Assuming there is a basic level of consistency between how non-magical humanoids (such as hobgoblins and playable-race fighters) gain abilities, wouldn't it be both reasonable and possible for a fighter to pick up the hobgoblin's effective combat style?

No. PCs = Murderhobos. They never stay long enough in one place to learn to fight in formation


That is what brought me down with 3.x after while - that monsters and PCs had to be built under the same (or very similar) framework. I recall that Necromancer Games stat'd out their Orcus. Someone noted that the statblock contained the Toughness edge so the hit points would come out to exactly 666 - silly - just give him 666 hps and be done with it. I remember the straw that broke the camels back for me (3.x wise) was gearing up to run Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. A two page stat block for Strahd. Yes, that bad boy deserves a sizable write up but there was just tons of needless information in there because he was just a PC with a template slapped on him (to be fair, they did a good job of giving you a condensed version for what you needed in certain encounters).

Although I never did much with 4e, I liked the overall monster design philosophy: "Here is this critter's shtick" and not worry about the minutiae of why it worked for one critter and not another. It allowed kobolds to be slippery little buggers, hobgoblins to be militaristic, orcs to be savages without having to list a bunch of feats/skills. They just did it an one or two actions that led to that feel.

That is a very long answer as to why I would not build into the system a way for a PC to get that nifty trick (even if they were a hobgoblin - unless it was a party of hobgoblins from the same tribe)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For me, working within the (perceived) framework of the (not yet released) rules is more interesting than railing at said framework.

Thaumaturge.

So being annoyed by one particular, kind of crap/lazy seeming monster-design is "railing at the framework"? Can you explain that?

If PCs can get a feat where they can do +2d6 damage 1/turn if another PC is nearby, I imagine that may be popular!

 

[tomBitonti]

The value of Martial Advantage -- 2d6 extra damage -- seems too high for a creature with a basic attack which does 1d8+1 damage.

There are other problems with Martial Advantage:

* Any ally provides the benefit.

* They don't even need to be actively menacing to provide the benefit; a goblin in hiding who is not intending to attack provides the benefit, as does an ally who is in disguise (who also does not intend to attack and break cover).

Given the similarity to 3E Sneak Attack, the damage matches 3rd level rogue damage bonus for a flank attack. Since the Hobgoblin has 2 HD, a reduction to 1d6 seems appropriate.

A problem with the ability is that it makes fights very very unpredictable: With two Hobgoblins against 4 1st level characters, if the Hobgoblins attack first focus on a single character, a 50% attack success chance, makes for 1d8 + 1 + 2d6 or 12.5 expected damage, enough to drop any single character except a fighter. On the other hand, if the players go first, they have a very good chance of taking out one of the Hobgoblins in the first round, effectively neutering the other Hobgoblin.

The players can recover if the Cleric acts quickly and can heal the fallen character, or if the rest of the party springs to action and attacks one of the Hobgoblins using their better abilities. On the other hand, if the players are off-balance or don't wake up to the threat, they could be quickly destroyed.

One view of the lethality of the ability is to look at what happens if you put the Hobgobin at range and put two goblin skirmishers keeping to cover amongst the party.

As a side note: Martial prowess, or simple brute strength, are what works for Hobgoblins (or Ogres), an ability which provides a bonus to martial oriented Cha checks based on Str would seem to fit very well.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not sure if you're trying to up-level me in the joke department, or if this is somehow actually serious. If the former, bravo, you got me. If the latter, chill pill, dude. The only person I've ever punched was my brother when we were kids (and I only had to do that once )

A little of both, to honest! I'm really tired of this macho-male internet tough guy stuff where people keep suggesting violence towards players as the solution to everything, so I thought I'd push it the other way. It's grossing me out!

 

[Agamon]

A little of both, to honest! I'm really tired of this macho-male internet tough guy stuff where people keep suggesting violence towards players as the solution to everything, so I thought I'd push it the other way. It's grossing me out!

Apologies. Replace the act of violence with a sternly-worded letter and a cross finger-wagging.

Edit: However, I can't help but spot the irony of this reply in response to players wanting thier PCs to kill their enemies more efficiently.