D&D 5E Quirks & Exploits

[Obryn]

Alignment has literally nothing to do with whether one is an "ally" with a creature in a particular combat, so that seems... irrelevant...

Yeah, whether it's a warhorse attacking my enemies, a dog, a summoned monster, an animated zombie, or Fighter Bob, it's an ally.

 

[SigmaOne]

Alignment has literally nothing to do with whether one is an "ally" with a creature in a particular combat, so that seems... irrelevant...

I don't disagree. Just stating what the quote was getting at. I think there's room for discussion as to whether the intended implications of "ally" here include an unintelligent animal, even trained and acting under commands. Now that I think about it, though, wolves have Pack Tactics which uses the exact same wording, and so they must be considering the wolves each others' allies, even though they're unintelligent and unaligned. So I think the right interpretation is any creature engaged in the combat on your side is your ally. So, now that I've had that discussion with myself, I agree with me. And you. And [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION].

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't disagree. Just stating what the quote was getting at.

If that's what he was getting at, then it literally makes no sense.

So I assumed there was more to it!

I think there's room for discussion as to whether the intended implications of "ally" here include an unintelligent animal, even trained and acting under commands. Now that I think about it, though, wolves have Pack Tactics which uses the exact same wording, and so they must be considering the wolves each others' allies, even though they're unintelligent and unaligned. So I think the right interpretation is any creature engaged in the combat on your side is your ally. So, now that I've had that discussion with myself, I agree with me. And you. And [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION].

Indeed!

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

My comment was more of a tongue-in-cheek RAW interpretation -- ruling-wise, I'd say it's DM's call, but I made the joke since obsessing over RAW abuse seemed to be the topic at hand. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[BoldItalic]

The requirement for Sneak Attack is that the other creature "is an enemy of the target". It doesn't have to be your ally (though it can be, of course).

 

[I'm A Banana]

The requirement for Sneak Attack is that the other creature "is an enemy of the target". It doesn't have to be your ally (though it can be, of course).

"I HATE YOU SO MUCH I AM GOING TO MURDER YOU WITH MY PHD IN MURDEROLOGY!

...

....but I got no beef with your horse. We're cool."

 

[Snapdragyn]

The requirement for Sneak Attack is that the other creature "is an enemy of the target". It doesn't have to be your ally (though it can be, of course).

Note to self: Pack some carrots for the horses of attacking mounted rogues.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The rational behind sneak attack seems to be that a target can't as effectively defend itself against the rogue and another attacker. So, any attacking pets would count. In the case of a mount, such as a warhorse, I think I would consider the mount and rider to be a single entity for the purposes of sneak attack, since the target would be defending against them as a single entity. A comparable example would be a centaur with levels of Rogue. I wouldn't give them sneak attack by default either.

That said, if the Rogue were to jump off of the horse, and both continue to attack the target, then the Rogue would get sneak attack.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't have the PHB yet, but I got a look at the list of Deities and wow, definitely a lot of stuff that is wacky/strange/dumb there.

I mean, it seems clear that whoever did the Greek deities has literally never seriously read any Greek Mythology. Artemis is NG. Artemis. What... by D&D's own definitions, she's N *at best*, probably CN. Most Greek gods should be CN. They do whatever the hell they personally feel like with no regard for morality or righteousness. Hades, who, frankly, is one of the better ones, is LE. If he's LE, guys, then Zeus is CE, so that's some Hollywood bullcrap right there. Hephaestus is NG. I can't think of anything that he's ever done that would warrant that. Aphrodite is CG. HAH! As if. Hera is CN?! That seems actively sexist and nasty. Hera is, if anything, more rational than most of the gods. Nasty? Yes, but in an organised, logical way. You can't have Zeus, who does whatever the hell he likes to whoever he likes whether they think it's okay or not, as N, and Hera as CN. You just can't. She is far more "lawful" than him. If he's CN, she could be N. LN or even LE might be better for her. I could go on. At least Ares is CE. That's something.

In the Celtic ones, Arawn is listed as NE. Er, no. Arawn is not a particularly nasty figure in actual Celtic myth. There's zero justification for him being Evil that I can see (unless, again, a whole bunch of people they have listed as N and even G are going to be E).

Odin is NG... it just doesn't seem quite right.

I could go on about this stuff all day, but it just seems really dodgy. The Hera thing makes me actually mad. She's a total dick, sure, but she is not more random or unreasonable than Zeus, for god's sake!

 

[Snapdragyn]

A comparable example would be a centaur with levels of Rogue.

Note to self addendum: Half carrots for half of the centaurs?