D&D 5E 5e Hobgoblin stat block

[Ruin Explorer]

Your premise is that this is an ability that makes no sense and is impossible to explain.

No, it isn't, and there is literally no way you can back that up by quoting me. At best you're exaggerating to the point where you've lost touch with what I was actually saying, at worst, you're just making it up.

You said: rogues get only +1d6 senak attack. You are wrong. Rogues MIGHT have +1d6 sneak attack damage or the MIGHT have +2d6 sneak attack damage at level 2 (which I consider not unlikely). So if you say: PCs can´t get an ability to replicate that power at level 1 or 2 is wrong. They might not be able to, or they might be able to. We just don´t know and you are jumping to conclusions.

Going on the October Playtest when the vast majority of what we've seen about class abilities so is identical to the October Playtest (particularly numbers-wise) is "jumping to conclusions"? I don't think that's a fair or sensible position Rather I have made reasonable guess, which no-one but you think is wrong. There's no jumping or leaping required. Also, I notice Cybit hasn't stepped in to agree with you. Pretty sure he would have if you were right.

If Rogues DO have +2d6 SA at L1, then sure, I agree, this ability is reasonable and explicable as just being a special form of Sneak Attack. It's not "jumping to conclusions" in any normal, English sense of the phrase, to work on the assumption that they still have +1d6, though, it's just making an informed-but-not-certain guess.

I think they should change the ability to better reflect its name, rather than being sneak attack in all-but-name. For example:

Martial Advantage: the hobgoblin has Advantage on its attack rolls if its target is within 5 feet of an ally of the hobgoblin that isn't incapacitated.

That sounds good. It's a really weird name when it doesn't grant or rely upon Advantage, and it giving advantage would still make Hobgoblins into a menace if near each other.

You say this like it's objective fact and everyone agrees with you, when neither of those things is true.

I think it's just fine design, and there are some who apparently agree with me, too.

Are you new to messageboards? It looks like you have 20000 posts, so that seems unlikely. What's with the faux-naivete? Do we all have to mention that everything is our opinion now? Even when it's obviously our opinion? If I mean something is a fact, I say it. You can see that in a number of my posts (if you search for me and the word "fact", you'll find some).

Otherwise, like everyone else here, including you, no matter how many people agree with either of us, we're stating opinion.

That said, going through this thread, it seems like the vast majority of people who did more than comment in passing about it have problems with this ability. I think even you do. The most common objections seem to be:

1) It shouldn't work at range.

2) The damage is perhaps excessive.

3) It should require more than just a random friend of the Hobgoblin to be near you.

Given all that, I think it's fair to say that it's a common opinion, in this thread, that the ability isn't well-designed. Whether people object to the damage or not varies, or think it needs more of an explanation or not, varies, but a whole lot of people think it should be changed in at least some way. You, I take it, would see nothing at all about it changed? So it would continue to work at range, with any random friend nearby, and so on?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You say this like it's objective fact and everyone agrees with you, when neither of those things is true.

I think it's just fine design, and there are some who apparently agree with me, too.

Are you new to messageboards? It looks like you have 20000 posts, so that seems unlikely. What's with the faux-naivete? Do we all have to mention that everything is our opinion now? Even when it's obviously our opinion? If I mean something is a fact, I say it. You can see that in a number of my posts (if you search for me and the word "fact", you'll find some).

Otherwise, like everyone else here, including you, no matter how many people agree with either of us, we're stating opinion.

That said, going through this thread, it seems like the vast majority of people who did more than comment in passing about it have problems with this ability. I think even you do. The most common objections seem to be:

1) It shouldn't work at range.

2) The damage is perhaps excessive.

3) It should require more than just a random friend of the Hobgoblin to be near you.

Given all that, I think it's fair to say that it's a common opinion, in this thread, that the ability isn't well-designed. Whether people object to the damage or not varies, or think it needs more of an explanation or not, varies, but a whole lot of people think it should be changed in at least some way. You, I take it, would see nothing at all about it changed? So it would continue to work at range, with any random friend nearby, and so on?

A couple of thoughts.

1.) If you want weak, safe creatures that your PCs can beat up, try normal goblins. Hobgoblins should be SCARY. A hobgoblin barking orders can turn a bunch of normal goblins into a dangerous fighting force. They aren't just tall goblins.

2.) We need to get out of this "oh, monsters will only take 1/4 of my resources" mentality. Until your third level, hobgoblins can murder you.

3.) They're glass cannons: 11 hp is easy to work through. Take them down quick.

4.) Use missile weapons. Cast spells on them. Use that second wind or action surge!

1. No, he can't. He can turn himself into a dangerous person, if other enemies are near the PCs, whether they're goblins, rats, or red dragons, but he in no way whatsoever enhances the goblins, rats or red dragons. He is not a commander or leader of any shape or form. If his "Martial Advantage" granted Advantage (say) to all allies attack the same target as him, rather than being a glorified Sneak Attack, then you'd be right.

2. No-one is in that mentality, AFAIK. We've all playtested 5E (I hope!). Orcs with their Great Axes can 1-shot you. This is just REALLY LIKELY to one-shot you! It does nearly the same damage as the CR2 Ogre for goodness sake! Dude is 8-9' tall and has a giant club and he averages a measly 0.5 more damage than a CR1/2 Hobbie grunt who has an ally of any kind adjacent to you.

3. 11 HP is not "glass cannon" in 5E. It's usually going to take 2-4 attacks from the PCs (including misses - 2 hits, normally) to do that damage in 5E. We need to get out of this "11 HP is nothing" mentality!

4. That is a good strategy that is indeed being overlooked, so kudos there, but I still find the basic design problematic, and would rather use something more flexible.

 

[Mistwell]

No, it isn't, and there is literally no way you can back that up by quoting me. At best you're exaggerating to the point where you've lost touch with what I was actually saying, at worst, you're just making it up.

Uh no, I am responding to what you said, and that sounds like your excuse for not dealing with the points I made in response to you. Here are some quotes from you earlier in this thread:

A fight that is tough because humanoid monsters use a poorly explained and impossible-to-anticipate ability (which this is), though, is not something you can blame on the players.

Obviously weird monsters aren't familiar humanoids who have just gained a massively powerful new ability, so that's not what's being discussed...Sure, but this is bad design, even accounting for that...The Hobbie ability is virtually pure metagame.

So again, you've said it's a poorly explained purely metagamed impossible to predict ability. That is the premise you've built your rants on. If you didn't mean that, then perhaps you shouldn't have been arguing it all along.

However, the fact that it is a formation tactic was explained earlier, so it's not purely metagame as you have a good logical explanation for it. It's also not impossible to predict that creatures fighting in formation might fight better, and that was also explained earlier.

So, we're down to "I didn't expect a humanoid I know from prior editions would do this", which is a crappy position that has no strong basis from which to object to it on the level you're objecting to it. This is not bad design - formation tactics is something that has existed in D&D before, and in wargames, and in real life so I fail to see the poor design here. You appear to be complaining because it's "new and unexpected" from your own metagaming perspective of prior editions.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

This martial advantage does suggest Hobgoblins are major players in the default setting.

(At least I hope the narrative backs this up and it's not just a case of X monster needs Y damage for mechanical reasons.)

But call me optimistic, I think the narrative will match this ability. Which then begs the question, how do Humans compete?

Rank & file Hobgoblins have top quality armour, melee and missile weapons, and a highly coordinated fighting style. It looks like Humans wouldn't want to take the field and might rely of fortifications and good ol' fashioned numbers? But those two don't work well together, siege and mouths to feed.

I mean the race looks almost too dominating.

 

[Pickles JG]

I am sure Ruin Explorer is setting you all up for a gotcha!

This looks like a classic 4e monster design to me though without a role (he is a very tough lurker). I don't need an explanation for the power it just does what it is suppose to do, except he feels like a rogue, not a phalanx member. I do think the extra damage is too much & I don't see why it works at range but that remains to be played.

It like that it encourages the Hobbies to bunch up which with their High AC makes them relatively vulnerable to Mages & resistant to warriors - that sort of tension is nice if it is not always that way round

I did think it was pretty tedious that almost every monster's little schtick seemed to be bonus damage in some situation or other & I hope that has changed.

These guys will murderise ogres if they meet in small numbers of similar XP - 9 vs 2 say. With 900 vs 200 the ogres would have it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However, the fact that it is a formation tactic was explained earlier, so it's not purely metagame as you have a good logical explanation for it. It's also not impossible to predict that creatures fighting in formation might fight better, and that was also explained earlier.

This ability has nothing to do with and does not particularly benefit from "fighting in formation". Read the rules. Hobbies gain the benefit whenever ANY ALLY is ADJACENT to their TARGET.

Think about that. It works best OUT of formation. That's part of my problem with it.

Change it to work only when the Hobgoblin is adjacent to ANOTHER HOBGOBLIN, and then it becomes more predictable and easier to prevent. Right now this works better with the Hobbies surrounding people and/or skirmishing than being in a traditional Hobgoblin formation.

So, we're down to "I didn't expect a humanoid I know from prior editions would do this", which is a crappy position that has no strong basis from which to object to it on the level you're objecting to it. This is not bad design - formation tactics is something that has existed in D&D before, and in wargames, and in real life so I fail to see the poor design here. You appear to be complaining because it's "new and unexpected" from your own metagaming perspective of prior editions.

It's not formation tactics. I've explained why above. You keep claiming things which aren't true, dude. First you claim I said something I didn't, and then provide quotes to prove I didn't say that (!!!). Please stop asserting I'm using unqualified terms like "impossible". I'm not. I'm using qualifiers for a reason... If I meant "impossible", I wouldn't use a qualifier.

It's bad design, imo, because of the combination of factors.

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

2) It works with any ally, including ones completely untrained with cooperating with Hobbies, and even non-sentients.

3) It works at range, with no restrictions (that seems kind of bonkers).

4) The name does not reflect the function, given that it doesn't involved Advantage in any way.

5) I personally do not believe it's something that players will easily understand or pick up, particularly because it doesn't actually involve formation fighting and doesn't actually require multiple hobgoblins to be involved.

6) It's (imo) too powerful to not require a Reaction or something on the part of the other ally involved (it adds more damage than they'd likely inflict on an OA, if the OA even hit, for goodness sake!).

I'm not going to get into your whole "You're not allowed to say that!" deal, because I am allowed to say this. You're welcome to disagree with my reasoning, but I'm not sure how much you do, beyond that you think it's "obvious" (which, given you incorrectly think it involves "formation fighting", I find a little hard to take!).

 

[Blackwarder]

I like the new Hobgoblins, they give the impression of being the highly trained worriers that they are without making the monster too complex, also they can be used against the PC as-is from 1st level to much higher levels.

I also like the fact that 5e don't try to spell out the exact conditions for things to work, for example having an ally just hide next to the PC shouldn't trigger the Hobgoblins ability unless it's under special circumstances.

Also I like the fact that it keeps ally undefined, I can picture an adventure with a hobgoblin chief of a goblin tribe so in this instance the goblins are the chiefs and his hobgoblin guard allies, OTOH in another adventure later down the line I can see the hobgoblins being part of an army made of opposing creatures so in a fight the orcs (for example), while fighting alongside the hobgoblins, aren't allies so they don't grant the ability.

My point is that I like the fact that story elements (who is allied with who) effect this creature performance

Oh, and a phalanx of those goblins should be a terror on the battlefield, they are like the Uruk-Hai in the LotR movies!

Warder

 

[Mistwell]

This ability has nothing to do with and does not particularly benefit from "fighting in formation". Read the rules. Hobbies gain the benefit whenever ANY ALLY is ADJACENT to their TARGET.

Think about that. It works best OUT of formation. That's part of my problem with it.

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.

Change it to work only when the Hobgoblin is adjacent to ANOTHER HOBGOBLIN, and then it becomes more predictable and easier to prevent. Right now this works better with the Hobbies surrounding people and/or skirmishing than being in a traditional Hobgoblin formation.

The harm to the foe doesn't come from two allies being next to each other - that helps defense rather than offense (and I think dragonshield kobolds have that one). No, for an offensive gain from formation fighting, the key is that your ally is next to your foe - on their other side even. It's the issue that your foe has to deal with something else and cannot defend as well against your attack.

It's not formation tactics. I've explained why above. You keep claiming things which aren't true, dude.

It is a formation tactic, as I've explained above, and I keep claiming things which are true. Call me a liar again and we will get a moderator in here to judge it - and I suspect the guy who cannot go two responses in a row without calling the other one a liar is the one that will be on the short end of the stick on that issue. You really want to go there? Call me a liar again - I dare you.

First you claim I said something I didn't, and then provide quotes to prove I didn't say that (!!!).

The quotes do back up my former claims. If you didn't mean it to come across the way you did come across, perhaps you should try and explain your position better rather than just making it a personal attack.

Please stop asserting I'm using unqualified terms like "impossible". I'm not. I'm using qualifiers for a reason... If I meant "impossible", I wouldn't use a qualifier.

I quoted the word impossible from you above. Are you denying you said it was an impossible-to-predict ability?

It's bad design, imo, because of the combination of factors.

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

Why is that nuts, and why is that bad design? You don't like the damage they can do and now we're calling that a mental disease issue for the designers? Tone. The. Hyperbole. Down.

2) It works with any ally, including ones completely untrained with cooperating with Hobbies, and even non-sentients.

Yes because it's the hobgoblin that takes advantage of you being distracted by a foe attacking you. Makes sense to me. Same logic as sneak attack advantage, only expressed differently this time.

3) It works at range, with no restrictions (that seems kind of bonkers).

Again with the claim that, if it works different than you'd have it work, it's a mental problem for the author? It works at range because it's the distraction that is at play. It makes sense. It's the same sense as ranged sneak attacking.

4) The name does not reflect the function, given that it doesn't involved Advantage in any way.

They take ADVANTAGE of your distraction to do you more harm. It's an English word, not a mechanic.

5) I personally do not believe it's something that players will easily understand or pick up, particularly because it doesn't actually involve formation fighting and doesn't actually require multiple hobgoblins to be involved.

So work to describe it as a DM, or leave it as a mystery for the players to figure out. As long as it does have an explanation, which is the distraction lets them take advantage of an opening to hit you where it hurts more, it works fine. They have special experience and training that lets them take advantage of such situations - others have suggested it's a sign they are commanders, and that works fine too.

6) It's (imo) too powerful to not require a Reaction or something on the part of the other ally involved (it adds more damage than they'd likely inflict on an OA, if the OA even hit, for goodness sake!).

This is just a repeat claim with a new item number on it - you don't like the damage done by it. Not really the quality of complaint you're making it out to be.

 

[Blackbrrd]

How can it be formation fighting when it works perfectly well for the hobgoblin with a bow 150 feet from his ally goblin harassing the PC?

 

[Kobold Stew]

I like the new Hobgoblins, they give the impression of being the highly trained worriers

Given the highly trained worriers in this thread, it seems appropriate.

You keep claiming things which aren't true, dude. First you claim I said something I didn't, and then provide quotes to prove I didn't say that (!!!).

<snip>

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

I've stated upthread that I expect that there are problems with the ability. So I agree with your conclusion, at least in part. Your argumentation, though, really works against you. You claim

It's bad design, imo, because of the combination of factors.

so let's consider your factors indicating bad design.

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

2) It works with any ally, including ones completely untrained with cooperating with Hobbies, and even non-sentients.

3) It works at range, with no restrictions (that seems kind of bonkers).

4) The name does not reflect the function, given that it doesn't involved Advantage in any way.

5) I personally do not believe it's something that players will easily understand or pick up, particularly because it doesn't actually involve formation fighting and doesn't actually require multiple hobgoblins to be involved.

6) It's (imo) too powerful to not require a Reaction or something on the part of the other ally involved (it adds more damage than they'd likely inflict on an OA, if the OA even hit, for goodness sake!).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

You have an argument here, but you're not making it.