D&D 5E 5e Hobgoblin stat block

[Ruin Explorer]

I feel that you often find yourself in these kind of conversations, RE. It seems to happen disproportionately often.

Yes, with largely with you and Mistwell. Takes two to tango. You both like to dissect my posts, and then say I'm saying things that I'm explicitly not (to be fair, I'm sometimes unclear, but I do then clarify!), hence I get into this kind of conversation with you. It's pretty obvious cause-and-effect!

1 Almost. It makes hobgoblins in certain situations "virtually equivalent" to an ogre. However, since each hobgoblin has a lower CR than any given ogre, that's to be expected, isn't it? Or perhaps you mean it makes a single hobgoblin "virtually equivalent" to a single ogre? That's not true either, since the power you are concerned with can't then activate. So I suspect you mean tat it makes multiple hobgoblins "virtually equivalent" to multiple ogres. That might be the case; I don't know, but the imprecision of your argument considerably weakens your case.

I'm summarizing, not repeating the entire argument. If you can't forgive imprecision there, you're asking too much for my money/time, and probably should put me on ignore.

You only need one Hobgoblin and other "allies" to make the ability go. Your suspicions are wrong, by the way, and I have no idea how you come by them. They defy very basic logic. If you insist on assuming other people are illogical on such a basic level, your ability to understand their arguments is going to be pretty weak (one might question how much of a "theory of mind" you have regarding others, at least via the internet, too).

2 I am challenged by your assertion that non-sentient things can be an ally. Where does this definition of ally come from? I can't find it in the play test docs, and it would seem odd that any non-sentient object could serve this function. If it could, then I agree that it would be broken.

Personally, I wouldn't reckon sentience alone qualified one as an ally -- my character can wield a sentient sword, but it's not an ally, is it? Any player arguing such would certainly be roundly mocked at my table. Perhaps the rules will clarify, perhaps it'll be up to the DM. Either way, drawing conclusions like this from an excerpt seems rash.

Non-sentient means not self-aware, not "an object", Kobold. A cat is non-sentient. A human is sentient. Things that are fighting on the same side are usually considered "allies" in D&D.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ally&alpha=

So you will please reconsider this in the light of the definition above (which I believe is likely to apply) and the fact that you seem to have misunderstood "non-sentient" to mean "objects" rather than "non-sentients who could be allies".

3 Here is, potentially, an argument that is solid, and it is one to which I am sympathetic. It is the only one of your six, and given that your rationale for it is, shall we say, under argued ("seems kind of bonkers"), you have to understand not everyone will agree with us.

Again, I'm not making a detailed argument, I'm summarizing reasons. If you want a detailed argument, it's already been made. Repeating it is redundant (though feel free to do so yourself!).

4 The name, if inapplicable, is not evidence of bad design.

Sure it's evidence of bad design. Good design includes good naming of abilities (many designers have said as much). That's not rocket science, is it?

5 Personal belief about other players' ability to grasp mechanics (when clearly the evidence in the thread demonstrates that some people can grasp the mechanics) is not evidence of bad design.

It is. It's just not something you agree with.

6 Subjective opinion ("imo") is not evidence of bad design.

Yes, it is. Virtually every possible reason to consider something badly designed is potentially subjective, whether you like that or not*. You're welcome to disagree with the point, but it is no more or less subjective than the ranged one, which you agree with.

If you're looking for "purely objective proof" of bad design, you're being pretty silly, I would suggest. I'm offering an opinion as to why it might be considered bad design. You can take that or leave it, but you can't whinge about "subjective" or the like.

* = Unless there is a very strict framework behind abilities, like in 4E. But in 5E, there isn't, as far as we know.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I wish you were right, but @Ruzak 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.

Ok, granted. I concur, that "non incapacitated" seems superfluous. Maybe "threatened by", or "engaged with" should have been used. I think the 5ft restriction is also a bit annoying, since that way an ally with 10ft reach can´t assist the hobgoblin, so ranged or pike formations don´t work.

Its not too late to change the wording for the MM!!! Someone should twitter it to mearls.

 

[pemerton]

four-against-two means that the hobgoblins will have a difficult time using Martial Advantage (they won't be able to spare their attacks for the PC facing off against their buddy).

I don't quite follow this. As long as the hobgoblins are adjacent can't they get the buff even if attacking different targets?

Make it a ranged battle to keep the hobgoblins from closing in and dogpiling the party.

Use missile weapons. Cast spells on them.

I think I find it a bit disappointing that when the party confronts a serious military challenge, the best response for the party (non-archer) fighter or barbarian is to hang back and let the mages and archers handle it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm summarizing, not repeating the entire argument. If you can't forgive imprecision there, you're asking too much for my money/time, and probably should put me on ignore.

There's nothing to forgive. What you wrote was poorly argued. I'm not going to ignore someone who does that (why would I?) -- but I will treat them with respect by giving them my time in an attempt to engage in a real conversation.

So let's see what you have to say.

(1)

You only need one Hobgoblin and other "allies" to make the ability go. Your suspicions are wrong, by the way, and I have no idea how you come by them. They defy very basic logic. If you insist on assuming other people are illogical on such a basic level, your ability to understand their arguments is going to be pretty weak (one might question how much of a "theory of mind" you have regarding others, at least via the internet, too).

When we cut away the silly rhetoric (everything after the first sentence quoted above), it seems I did misunderstand you. It's not that you are almost right; you are indeed completely wrong. You claim "the Hobbie [is] virtually equivalent to an Ogre". This is not the case. In order for this to be potentially true (as you note here) you need there to be allies in the equation, which is what I said.

A revised claim, <<the hobgoblin and other allies are virtually equivalent to an ogre and other allies>> is also, I suspect, incorrect, but at least is defensible. That's a question of encounter building, though, not the ability of the creature, or evidence of bad design.

(2)

Non-sentient means not self-aware, not "an object", Kobold. A cat is non-sentient. A human is sentient. Things that are fighting on the same side are usually considered "allies" in D&D.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_ally&alpha=

So you will please reconsider this in the light of the definition above (which I believe is likely to apply) and the fact that you seem to have misunderstood "non-sentient" to mean "objects" rather than "non-sentients who could be allies".

See? This is helpful. You're choosing an interesting line here, and since you've already brought up "theory of mind" it's worth pursuing. The definition you provide (from 3.5, c. 2003) assumes the ally is capable of being friendly, whatever that means. In D&D terms, that's a measure of the intelligence score. So is any positive intelligence score sufficient? Before reading your post, I would have said yes, but I have reconsidered.

In 5e the Ochre Jelly has an intelligence of 2 (characterized in the stat block as "bestial cunning"). So, here's the question: can an ochre jelly be an ally? (or, to use the definition you've provided, can it be a creature friendly to me?).

I would say no. Since a human minimum intelligence is 3, we have a benchmark for the potential to be an ally: Int 2 no; Int 3 yes. And there are cases where one can be fighting with a sentient being (such as the intelligent sword) where it is not an ally. So Intelligence 3+ is a necessary but not sufficient quality to make an ally.

So you have changed my mind on this -- your argument has made me raise my threshold for what constitutes an ally. I still see no reason to think non-sentients can be an ally by this definition.

(3)

Again, I'm not making a detailed argument, I'm summarizing reasons. If you want a detailed argument, it's already been made. Repeating it is redundant (though feel free to do so yourself!).

I did make it myself, along with others. Remember, I'm agreeing with you on this.

(4-6)
No new evidence presented here, simply "yes it is". If you can't or won't substantiate your claims, I will continue to see them as empty.

I'm offering an opinion as to why it might be considered bad design. You can take that or leave it, but you can't whinge about "subjective" or the like.

I can do more than take it or leave it, I can choose to engage with it. You've posted here because (I presume) you believe your view is worth other people's time. We all get consider the substance, if any, in the posts of our interlocutors, and add to the argument. This is what I tried to do here.

It's not whinging to ask for an argument where there is none, or where you by your own admission have not provided one.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't quite follow this. As long as the hobgoblins are adjacent can't they get the buff even if attacking different targets?


I think I find it a bit disappointing that when the party confronts a serious military challenge, the best response for the party (non-archer) fighter or barbarian is to hang back and let the mages and archers handle it.

The difference is between formation and guerrilla warfare. Hobgoblins murder you in formation, so you are wiser NOT to play their game and instead opt for skirmish.

Remathilis "The Dessert Fox"

 

[Nebulous]

I was surprised that even he thought it was a bit much and offered that perhaps it should only work when the hobgoblin's ally also has the Martial Advantage ability, which makes it less like a rogues sneak attack, and more like two skilled warriors fighting in tandem.

that's what i would do, they have to be trained together to take advantage of the trait.

 

[Klaus]

I don't quite follow this. As long as the hobgoblins are adjacent can't they get the buff even if attacking different targets?

It's all about keeping them apart and occupied. The Fighter can push one hobgoblin (or trip, grapple, etc), the cleric can keep the other in place (either through strength of arms or by casting a spell). As each melee combatant keeps a hobgoblin busy, the rogue can use sneak attacks on one while the wizard attacks the other.

I think I find it a bit disappointing that when the party confronts a serious military challenge, the best response for the party (non-archer) fighter or barbarian is to hang back and let the mages and archers handle it.

A military challenge requires good strategy and tactical choices. If the enemy uses cannon fodder to keep you distracted (either a couple of hobgoblins, a gang of goblins or a pack of hunting wolves -- all perfectly valid hobgoblin tactics), you can either put down the cannon fodder quickly, or focus on taking down the enemy archers.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

In 5e the Ochre Jelly has an intelligence of 2 (characterized in the stat block as "bestial cunning"). So, here's the question: can an ochre jelly be an ally? (or, to use the definition you've provided, can it be a creature friendly to me?).

I would say no. Since a human minimum intelligence is 3, we have a benchmark for the potential to be an ally: Int 2 no; Int 3 yes. And there are cases where one can be fighting with a sentient being (such as the intelligent sword) where it is not an ally. So Intelligence 3+ is a necessary but not sufficient quality to make an ally.

So you would not let the ability work with trained war dogs, for example? I would certainly consider creatures combat-capable, friendly. and under your direction to be allies.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not whinging to ask for an argument where there is none, or where you by your own admission have not provided one.

I view it as whinging to dismiss stuff as subjective in a fundamentally subjective argument, but obviously that's quite subjective! I believe I did provide an argument, but you dismissed it as subjective, which is totally find. It's not the same as not providing one at all, though.

You seem more interested in semantics than meaning, though, which kind of makes me less keen to discuss stuff with you (less so than certain people, admittedly! ). Fr'ex, re: ogre/hobbie, I think naturally one would assume I meant "hits like an ogre", which you seem to have skipped as option! (and is indeed what I was implying)

The difference is between formation and guerrilla warfare. Hobgoblins murder you in formation, so you are wiser NOT to play their game and instead opt for skirmish.

Remathilis "The Dessert Fox"

This isn't true. They murder harder (or at least equally harder, with less possibility of losses) in RL-style skirmish (i.e. few feet between each person) than formation (at least when equipped with the weapons from the statblock and using RAW). If they had reach weapons things would get more complicated, but the don't.

If you mean the party gets murdered less in skirmish, I agree, but not much less, RAW. Take out the working at range bit and it definitely helps and forces them to focus-fire in a way that will slow them down.

It's all about keeping them apart and occupied. The Fighter can push one hobgoblin (or trip, grapple, etc), the cleric can keep the other in place (either through strength of arms or by casting a spell). As each melee combatant keeps a hobgoblin busy, the rogue can use sneak attacks on one while the wizard attacks the other.

Trip isn't in 5E, afaik (except as a Battlemaster Fighter ability maybe?). Grapple is, and can potentially hold one in place. What is the Cleric's "strength of arms"? Grapple? They need to already be separated for grapple to have any value, though. Your entire strategy has an apparent presumption that Hobbies started separated in such a way that you can keep them that way, which may or may not be valid.

 

[Kobold Stew]

So you would not let the ability work with trained war dogs, for example? I would certainly consider creatures combat-capable, friendly. and under your direction to be allies.

Yes, I would too, and I'd expect them mechanically to have Int 3.

(I've just checked and seen that familiars have Int 2 -- the same as the ochre jelly. Hmm. Perhaps there is some other category difference that is at play.)