ChrisCarlson
First Post
Can someone please explain how the 4e barbarian uses the crack the shell daily power to separate an NPC from his armor?
D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
It's not what the power does. Fictionally, the fighter breaks through the enemy's armor and deals a painful bleeding wound. Mechanically, it's [2w] damage plus 5 ongoing damage and -2 AC to the enemy (save ends), plus it's Reliable (meaning if you miss, you retain the power).
It's also a fighter power, but I'm sure a player could figure out a way to have a barbarian character take it.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Is there some Evasion module in the DMG that I missed (they're could be, I'm not big on auditing rules this time around).
That's two optional sub-systems to let one PC run away.
So that one PC runs away and hides in a pocket of nowhere.
Doesn't sound great. You want to make sure everyone can run a gauntlet back to the entrance, you'd have to run pretty early in the fight before hps have been too depleted.
It was good enough for Jim Hawkins, so I'll spot you that one.
Seriously, though, as popular as it was on Monty Python & the Holy Grail, "run away, run away!" does not seem to have caught on with a lot of D&D groups, IMX, and the lack of a decent mechanic to resolve the whole party escaping seems to me to be a big part of it. I've seen at least my fair share of TPKs, and too often, by the time players realize things are not going their way, disengaging already seems to be a bad option. Of course, the more willing you are to outrun your allies (or 'drop food,' but I repeat myself), or otherwise go the every adventurer for himself rout, the more viable it becomes, I suppose...
I'm aware it's never worked well in D&D and I haven't seen a convincing counterpoint, as yet. Really, what'll be convincing to me is seeing a party actually try one of these days...
ChrisCarlson
First Post
[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]:
My point was that a barbarian does not generally have the option to declare he wishes to use crack the shell. So if the barbarian's player declared that he was attempting to do such a thing, how is that any different from a 5e character (who likewise does not have that daily power) wishing to do such a thing?
My point was that a barbarian does not generally have the option to declare he wishes to use crack the shell. So if the barbarian's player declared that he was attempting to do such a thing, how is that any different from a 5e character (who likewise does not have that daily power) wishing to do such a thing?
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
If you're asking about the AD&D sprinting rules, it's the "Jogging and Running (Optional Rule)" section of the 2nd edition DMG. Can move up to quadruple speed by making a number of ability checks at high penalties. Failure on Str means you can't increase your speed to the next level; failure on Con means you have to stop and rest for a turn (ten minutes).
You mean, "that's two optional sub-systems, either of which will suffice to let a PC run away." I listed a bunch of options, but you don't need to employ them all simultaneously.
Rope Trick covers the whole party, not just one PC.
As for Expeditious Retreat/Cunning Action, yes, it only covers one PC, but:
(1) If one PC can run away effectively, then he can hold off the enemy for a round (Dodging) while everyone else gains some distance (Dashing toward the horses) and then he can catch up later. That's one reason why monks are great to have around. OR
(2) Everyone else can run away (possibly suffering an opportunity attack per turn) while the mobile PC gets in a full sequence of attacks each turn until the pursuer eventually gives up in frustration.
Again, you don't need to employ both of these--and you can obviously build an entire party full of mobile PCs, which works really well because now everybody in the party can employ these tactics.
Doesn't sound great. You want to make sure everyone can run a gauntlet back to the entrance, you'd have to run pretty early in the fight before hps have been too depleted. It was good enough for Jim Hawkins, so I'll spot you that one.
Great! There are a number of other run-away options that work just fine too (Web/Wall of Force, Find Steed, illusions) but we didn't even have to dig too deep before finding one that worked for you, despite you apparently not liking/using either 1st level wizard/warlock/bard spells, multiclassing, or feats. That illustrates the point that 5E has lots of ways to run away. You'd be hard-pressed to find a game where running away wasn't an option, unless it's one of those crazy DMs who gates all of his encounters behind one-way teleportation traps. (I suggest not playing with those DMs.)
Edit: BTW, if you wait until you're actually engaged in melee with someone to start running away, you're pretty late. My players would run away from a death knight when they first saw one (even if the DM knows that it's really just a Flaming Skull). They wouldn't wait until it had already whittled everybody down to near-zero HP.
Seeing is believing? My players run away from things all the time. Sometimes it's kind of a letdown from a DM perspective but it makes perfect sense in-character.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
We were on to 5e at that point...
A PC...
Seems a little much to have to optimize the party to do something as straightforward as run for your lives. But that's hardly unprecedented.
It'd help, going forward. Too often I've seen players consider the option of running only when there's already one or more PCs down or they're too worn down to endure a series of 'parting shots' or too shy on resources to blow spells to make a break for it. Greater prescience on their part would obviously help, but so would that option being a known quantity in the same sense that standing and fighting tends to be.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Oh, okay - must have missed the exchanges to which you were referring. Apologies.
It's not different in any meaningful sense. A D&D 4e DM would have to refer to the rules for improvised actions on DMG page 42 and make a ruling on the spot, translating the fictional goal and approach of the character into system-appropriate mechanics. It was my experience that most people did not opt to do much that wasn't codified on a power card when it came to combat, even in my games where a player could expect to get a fair and balanced ruling. It just not what ya did, you know?
None of this is a judgment on my part, by the way. I love D&D 4e.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Okay. Since the sentence you quoted mentioned both AD&D and 5E I wasn't sure which one you meant. I guessed "AD&D" but apparently I guessed wrong.
Really? Optimizing for survival should be the party's top priority in my opinion. The single biggest reason I avoid dwarves and halflings in 5E is because of their slow movement rate. There are ways to overcome it (e.g. Longstrider or a good horse) but just seeing a substandard movement rate on my character sheet twigs my wargamer/powergamer instincts: "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!" Most casualties are suffered after an army routs, so being able to swiftly pursue and mop up the shattered remnants is the best way to make sure they don't reform and regroup later on. Conversely, being good at retreating in an orderly fashion is a vital advantage when you're facing unknown odds.
And even if the rest of the party didn't optimize for it, you can still do things to help run away. Three of the most obvious are: (1) cast Longstrider IV, which increases everyone's movement by 10' for one hour; (2) Use Arcane Eye to scout ahead and run away from anything that looks too tough for you before it knows you're there; (3) cast Wall of Force when you get in a losing fight and then book it for the exits.
Aren't Expeditious Retreat/Rope Trick/Wall of Force/Cunning Action/Mobile/Longstrider/Phantom Steed/Find Steed/wood elves/grappling/dodging/chokepoints/wall running/monks/Haste known quantities? I probably missed some. 5E is D&D: Mobility Edition.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
I see two ways forward for you: either threaten your players with potential TPK a few times (i.e. introduce high variance on potential deadliness, such as a random encounter table with both kobolds and beholders on it), or showcase a few humanoid opponents who are prepared to retreat when things go south. There's nothing that frustrates a player more than killing only 5 of the 18 goblins that jumped the party because the rest effectively hid/fled, especially if he knows that he's just going to have to fight those other 13 goblins at some point. If you run enemies that way, and then the players are still unprepared to run away when negotiations with the Death Knight go sour and he opens fire, at least it will be on their own heads.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
Not a crazy idea. But, if you're optimizing for survival, what do you do? Optimize for known quantities, the sub-systems in the game that are well defined, or for those that are less-well defined or harder to quantify?
Each individually, yes. How they'd work when you're trying to get your party to safety from an encounter gone bad, not always so much.
Oh, I'm not overly concerned with my current more-or-less regular group, whom I might have occasion to 'train' that way, that campaign's fairly railroady as it is.
I just made a much broader observation about D&D, in general, for the 36 year's I've been exposed to it not having much in the way of sub-systems to make escaping an encounter a viable options, and the closely linked observation that PC parties rarely try to escape. I consider the two to be related, obviously.
Sure, there's plenty of spells &c that might be used to try to escape an encounter gone bad, depending on the circumstance and the DM, whether in 5e or in prior editions. But there's not a sub-system as comparatively consistent as the combat round to use them w/in or optimize them for. It's much the same problem the game has historically had in the interaction 'pillar,' as well, only 'just RP it' isn't quite as a good a dodge.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Not a crazy idea. But, if you're optimizing for survival, what do you do? Optimize for known quantities, the sub-systems in the game that are well defined, or for those that are less-well defined or harder to quantify?
Each individually, yes. How they'd work when you're trying to get your party to safety from an encounter gone bad, not always so much.
Oh, I'm not overly concerned with my current more-or-less regular group, whom I might have occasion to 'train' that way, that campaign's fairly railroady as it is.
I just made a much broader observation about D&D, in general, for the 36 year's I've been exposed to it not having much in the way of sub-systems to make escaping an encounter a viable options, and the closely linked observation that PC parties rarely try to escape. I consider the two to be related, obviously.
Sure, there's plenty of spells &c that might be used to try to escape an encounter gone bad, depending on the circumstance and the DM, whether in 5e or in prior editions. But there's not a sub-system as comparatively consistent as the combat round to use them w/in or optimize them for. It's much the same problem the game has historically had in the interaction 'pillar,' as well, only 'just RP it' isn't quite as a good a dodge.
