D&D 5E 5e Hobgoblin stat block

[Nagol]

No, it works best with formation ranks. You attack with your melee weapon when your target is having to deal with an ally of yours also next to them. That's part of formation fighting. It's a BIG part of it. Works even better with a polearm from rank 2, but works fine from rank 1, or even for your archer ranks once the front line has closed.

Lord, no.

It works best when a small group of Hobgoblins stand way at the back and use an ally to engage the party. The skirmishers go as defensive as they can and let the Hob rain hell down from long range. Getting into melee in contra-indicated since it is more likely you'll be targeted as a major damage dealer.

One Hobgoblin and say 2-3 goblins can ruin a lot of parties' days that way.

 

[Wolfskin]

They should've made clearer in the statblock that a Hobgoblin shooting with a bow loses the +2 AC bonus from the shield. Ranged fighting is not that cool if the enemy party's snipers can take you down more easily.

 

[Kobold Stew]

They should've made clearer in the statblock that a Hobgoblin shooting with a bow loses the +2 AC bonus from the shield. Ranged fighting is not that cool if the enemy party's snipers can take you down more easily.

Good call.

 

[Cyberen]

I am really disturbed by the fact the trait "militaristic, fights well in formation" is represented by a Sneak Attack mechanic. Hobgoblins are neither swashbucklers nor skirmishers, and the fact their mechanics leans more towards the Rogue's than the Fighter's FEELS WRONG.
Also, the rationales behind this mechanic put forward by many posters make sense, but depict the hobgoblins as elite warriors. The ability to deal 2d6 additional damage using a ranged attack seems so outrageously good that I can see Rangers queuing to get Hobgoblin Marksman Training ASAP.

 

[Ruzak]

I would prefer a defensive bonus for hobgoblin next to an ally to represent a tight formation. As has been mentioned, the current mechanic has them pairing up or surrounding enemies. This is more like the 4e gnoll's pack attack (which required two allies). I love the mechanic for a hoard or pack, just less so for a monster in formation.

 

[Maliki67]

After some more thought, I think I am firmly in the camp of I don't like this ability, as it stands now. (However I still intend to run everything btb for a while before making any house rules.)

I don't see how it can be argued it is a "formation" tactic, no formation is required whatsoever. While it works with a phalanx of hobgoblins, it works equally well with a single hobgoblin and a blind, one legged goblin armed with a rusty spoon, as long as he is an ally of the hobgoblin and next to the PC.

Changes I am likely to make,

• It will be melee only
• It will work only if the ally is another hobgoblin(or at least a creature trained to fight with the hobgoblin)

 

[thalmin]

After some more thought, I think I am firmly in the camp of I don't like this ability, as it stands now. (However I still intend to run everything btb for a while before making any house rules.)

I don't see how it can be argued it is a "formation" tactic, no formation is required whatsoever. While it works with a phalanx of hobgoblins, it works equally well with a single hobgoblin and a blind, one legged goblin armed with a rusty spoon, as long as he is an ally of the hobgoblin and next to the PC.

Changes I am likely to make,

• It will be melee only
• It will work only if the ally is another hobgoblin(or at least a creature trained to fight with the hobgoblin)

I think as a DM I would interpret "ally who is not incapacitated" as someone who is actually a fighting ally, using a looser interpretation of "incapacitated."

 

[Tazawa]

I've had a look at the stat block and I think the Martial Advantage ability is reasonable. I tried a few combat simulations to test it out. The first thing I learned is that this statement isn't true at all.

1) It's damage is so high that it makes the Hobbie virtually equivalent to an Ogre. That's kinda nuts.

The sample first level fighter will make short work of a single hobgoblin, due to higher damage output and second wind. The same fighter was turned to paste after two rounds up against an ogre. Of course, because they were single foes, the Martial Advantage ability didn't come into play.

A standard party of 4 2nd level adventurers was able to handle 4 hobgoblins with ease. The hobs got the drop on the party and were able to put them at a disadvantage early by peppering the fighter with arrows (including a critical). The utility of second wind showed itself here again.

The hobs tried to send two of them into harry the group so that the remaining archers could use Martial Advantage. It didn't work so well for them. The party concentrated its attacks on one of the melee hobs and the wizard took out one of the hob archers with a sleep spell. After that, the other melee hob was dispatched and the party advanced on the remaining archer.

Only one attack hit with Martial Advantage and the fighter survived with help from the cleric. Most of the other hob attacks were done without Martial Advantage, as the melee hobs couldn't stay alive long enough to help out their archer allies.

The combat might have gone better if the hobs had concentrated on maintaining a tight melee formation instead of splitting up--but then that's supposed to be their preferred style. Maybe Martial Advantage actually does encourage phalanx fighting after all. ;-)

 

[Maliki67]

I think as a DM I would interpret "ally who is not incapacitated" as someone who is actually a fighting ally, using a looser interpretation of "incapacitated."

Good point, my example was in the extreme.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'm going to up the Hobgoblins to Str 18, +5 to hit, 1d8+4 damage.
With Martial Advantage of +1d6. That's only 11.5 average damage.