D&D 5E 5e Hobgoblin stat block

[UngeheuerLich]

The sim was against a party of four at 2'nd level.

Against a 1'st level party, use 2 goblins and 1 hobgoblin.

This sort of ambush is exactly what a hobgoblin would use. If a party were working their way around a goblin/hobgoblin outpost, then left to recover, then returned, they should very much run into this fight.

The Hobgoblin is trained and is ruthless, and should use his abilities effectively.

I still have a problem with the any ally adjacent text. A goblin spotter hiding in a bush next to a player qualifies. Would an animal companion (or familiar) hiding in a bush qualify?

I can understand that many (or some) don't think that should work. That says to me the text should be changed.

Myself, I think the ability should be 1d6 and only work with an ally that has the same ability who is engaged in melee with the same opponent.

Thx!

TomB

I don´t mind the wording. Actually I do like it, that corner cases or total stupidity is not explicitely excluded. Once you start specifying such ridiculous situations, people assume, that if such ridiculousness is not excluded in another ability, it works there too. I like hat mearls told us: "if people like to play in an unfun way, we won´t stop them." Rules lawyers will alway find holes. 4e Errata showed us, that plugging all those holes is not possible and makes the game a lot less fun for normal gamers.
I remember the divine challenge disaster, where we were stuck with a much too complex wording, because some jerk in preview game short before the release used it on the dragon and ran away, argumenting, that the dragon will eventually die, because he can´t attack them paladin. Rules lawyering and playing the game and the character and the ability against its spirit. And some voicy people on the forums supported that one gamer.
I was so glad, when somewhere around essentials, the divine challenge was reworded to its original form, before the overreaction to that bad gamer.
And yes, I said bad gamer. Because that was something that was very bad for 4e overall. Emphasizing wording over intend of the rules. It degenerated from a roleplaying game to just an exercise in rules exploiting.
Not a fault of 4e, but a fault from the designers to listen too much to those people.

I was so glad when I heard, that "living ruleset" now means: As long as a wording is no problem for most gamers (those with a brain to think for themselves) hey won´t change it.

 

[Nikosandros]

How did divine challenge change back to its earlier form? In the Compendium it still states that the challenge ends if the paladin does not engage the target (attacks or ends his turn adjacent to the target).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

How did divine challenge change back to its earlier form? In the Compendium it still states that the challenge ends if the paladin does not engage the target (attacks or ends his turn adjacent to the target).

hmm.... seems i was mistaken... thanks for correcting me...
edit: but i remembered correctly, that it was at least made a lot easier to understand...

 

[Nikosandros]

hmm.... seems i was mistaken... thanks for correcting me...
edit: but i remembered correctly, that it was at least made a lot easier to understand...

I was just genuinely curious, because I tried to be up to date at least on the major updated in the rules and there was a paladin in one of the 4e campaigns that I ran.

... and sorry for the slight derailment of the thread.

 

[Libramarian]

I don´t mind the wording. Actually I do like it, that corner cases or total stupidity is not explicitely excluded. Once you start specifying such ridiculous situations, people assume, that if such ridiculousness is not excluded in another ability, it works there too. I like hat mearls told us: "if people like to play in an unfun way, we won´t stop them." Rules lawyers will alway find holes. 4e Errata showed us, that plugging all those holes is not possible and makes the game a lot less fun for normal gamers.
I remember the divine challenge disaster, where we were stuck with a much too complex wording, because some jerk in preview game short before the release used it on the dragon and ran away, argumenting, that the dragon will eventually die, because he can´t attack them paladin. Rules lawyering and playing the game and the character and the ability against its spirit. And some voicy people on the forums supported that one gamer.
I was so glad, when somewhere around essentials, the divine challenge was reworded to its original form, before the overreaction to that bad gamer.
And yes, I said bad gamer. Because that was something that was very bad for 4e overall. Emphasizing wording over intend of the rules. It degenerated from a roleplaying game to just an exercise in rules exploiting.
Not a fault of 4e, but a fault from the designers to listen too much to those people.

I was so glad when I heard, that "living ruleset" now means: As long as a wording is no problem for most gamers (those with a brain to think for themselves) hey won´t change it.

I wish you were right, but [MENTION=64497]Ruzak[/MENTION] pointed out above that they felt a need to specify that the ally of the hobgoblin can't be incapacitated, which is an even more common sense restriction than that the enemy of the hobgoblin would need to be aware of the hobgoblin's ally.

It doesn't make sense to me that they wouldn't trust the DM to infer that the ally of the hobgoblin would need to be conscious, but at the same time trust the DM to infer that the ally must actually be distracting the enemy of the hobgoblin in some way. This actually says to me that they do want this ability to be activated even if the enemy is unaware of the ally (I'll believe anything after 4e).

I think they gave some lip service to the idea of using more natural language and less jargon during the playtest process but they're not really there yet. They still want to write rules like they're coding a videogame, hiding their intent with the rule in its logical implications rather than just saying it.

I would prefer if the ability were written like this:
Martial Advantage. Hobgoblins are more dangerous in groups. They take advantage when their enemy must split their attention between multiple foes. They deal an extra 7 (2d6) damage when attacking a creature in melee range of another hobgoblin, or ally of the hobgoblins.

 

[Maliki67]

I certainly would prefer something like that (even though 2d6 still sounds a bit excessive). In 4e hobgoblins have powers like Formation Strike and Phalanx Soldier that require another hobgoblin.

True, seems a bit much to me as well. Another thought was to drop the bonus damage all together, and if two or more hobgoblins(or an ally with martial advantage) attack a single target, they all attack with advantage.

Again, I'm not changing anything until I actually run some games and see all this in action, for myself. I may run this btb and find I actually like it.

 

[Scorpio616]

-'F**k this! I'm back to play Neverwinter'

Good riddance.

 

[evileeyore]

I would prefer if the ability were written like this:
Martial Advantage. Hobgoblins are more dangerous in groups. They take advantage when their enemy must split their attention between multiple foes. They deal an extra 7 (2d6) damage when attacking a creature in melee range of another hobgoblin, or ally of the hobgoblins.

This very much fits the idea of formation trained soldery Murder Hobo Killers.

 

[tomBitonti]

Thanks for the sim results.

The combat was quick and exciting, and very simple, so three stars there.

I wonder how many of these a party could face and still keep going.

Also, what happens if the party is low on resources or hit points.

Or, have the encounter guidelines just shifted such that a CR 1 encounter is just harder than before. That is a linear scale shift, which is not a big deal, it just needs to be gotten used to.

Thx,

TomB

 

[keterys]

I think I'd like

Martial Advantage: Any allies with martial advantage gain advantage on any enemy adjacent to this creature.