D&D 5E 5e Hobgoblin stat block

[Darth Quiris]

I like it.

 

[Klaus]

But in real life, wasn't it more effective to meet a phalanx with a phalanx, or a legion with a legion, rather than to try to take them on with skirmishers?

On the contrary, the very thing you don't want to use when facing a phalanx is another phalanx. From Wikipedia's article on phalanxes:

The Hoplite Phalanx was weakest when facing an enemy fielding lighter and more flexible troops without its own such supporting troops. An example of this would be the Battle of Lechaeum, where an Athenian contingent led by Iphicrates routed an entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins and bows which wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat.

 

[Libramarian]

Reading these early 5e design threads I've also been reading early 4e design threads, since they're often linked at the bottom of the page as related discussions. I was just listening to this interview [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] gave in 2008 talking about "black box" design, where you write rules to produce an intended outcome without necessarily modelling each step in the process. His example was the cover mechanics in the videogame Gears of War, which don't make any sense in terms of modelling how bullets impacts the human body but the outcome "feels" right because of the sense of danger you have when you're out of cover and the sense of relief and safety you have behind cover. This Hobgoblin ability seems right out of that school of thought. They don't want to explain exactly what is going on in the fiction here, they just want to create the effect of hobgoblins being scary when they mob you with as simple a rule as possible.

I mean the title "Martial Advantage" is really absurdly vague. I think they're being vague about what this represents in the fiction on purpose. If they wanted this to be a sneak attack-like thing they could easily have been more clear about that.

 

[pemerton]

On the contrary, the very thing you don't want to use when facing a phalanx is another phalanx. From Wikipedia's article on phalanxes:

Thanks for the reply. (Sorry my XP well is dry at the moment.)

The example you post seems to be of missile troops defeating a phalanx. I was thinking about melee combat. I thought that Celtic and Germanic skirmishers tended, on the whole, to fare poorly against Roman legions.

To clarify my views - and they're just that, my responses, and not anything that I would expect to generalise to other players:

* That missile troops are good against a phalanx of hobgoblins strikes me as realistic but a bit disappointing in terms of my preferred game play;

* That, in hand to hand, you have a better chance of defeating a phalanx of hobgoblins if you abandon your own formation strike me as odd - I'm still not sure why that is, in fictional terms.

 

[pemerton]

Reading these early 5e design threads I've also been reading early 4e design threads, since they're often linked at the bottom of the page as related discussions. I was just listening to this interview [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] gave in 2008 talking about "black box" design, where you write rules to produce an intended outcome without necessarily modelling each step in the process. His example was the cover mechanics in the videogame Gears of War, which don't make any sense in terms of modelling how bullets impacts the human body but the outcome "feels" right because of the sense of danger you have when you're out of cover and the sense of relief and safety you have behind cover. This Hobgoblin ability seems right out of that school of thought. They don't want to explain exactly what is going on in the fiction here, they just want to create the effect of hobgoblins being scary when they mob you with as simple a rule as possible.

I agree with this.

In 4e I felt that the "black box" of the standard humanoid abilities was easy to peer into (and the richer taxonomy of action types and keywords helped here too - the box was not quite as black). The weird stuff was left for things like Pact Hags and Chained Cambions - and if you're not sure what's happening in the fiction of course you're not obliged to use the creature.

If the hobgoblins got advantage on melee attack or defence while in formation, it would be clearer to me what is going on. It's the fact that the ally has to be adjacent to the target rather than the attacking hobgoblin, but doesn't itself have to interact with the target in any fashion other than proximity, that I'm not following. The nearest ability among the 4e humanoids that I can think of is the gnolls' pack attack, which gives +5 to damage if two allies are adjacent to the target. But I find that ability easier to interpret in the fiction for two reasons:

* The damage buff is typically a fraction rather than a multiple of the base damage;

* In the situation of 3 gnolls facing off against 3 PCs, only 1 PC is likely to have an attacking gnoll plus two others adjacent. The gnoll ability is most often going to come into play when the gnolls surround a PC and are, therefore, ganging up - so it really plays more like a pack ability than a formation-fighting ability.

The hobgoblin's martial advantage is a bigger buff under conditions that are less restrictive, and hence - for me at least - harder to interpret in fictional terms.

 

[jadrax]

Curious that a precise definition of "ally" was never discussed (or was it?)

In the 3E SRD, I'm finding two spells with "Ally" in the target text: Bless (which provides a Morale Bonus, which only affects targets with an Int more than zero), and Prayer, which has a differential Luck bonus / penalty for allies and enemies. What does Prayer do in regards a target who is neither an ally nor an enemy?

Again for 3E, flanking requires a friendly combatant who is in an opposing square and who threatens the target whom you are flanking.

What do folks do in 3E when a flanker is hidden or invisible?

The case of Summoned creatures is interesting: Nominally, they have no special directives other than what they are told. Should they be considered to threaten any foe other than the one they were told to attack? Should they be considered an Ally if they are attacking the same opponent as the Hobgoblin?

Note that the only condition is adjacency, and non-incapacity. How should we handle an unarmed but otherwise non-incapacitated goblin standing with the Hobgoblin?

This is all stuff that IMHO is better left for the DM to decide on a case by case basis.

 

[Thaumaturge]

She Who Must Not Be Named was a plant sent into the past by WotC in the future to begin ruining D&D before they ever even wanted to ruin it themselves as a means to soften the player base so they can kill John Conner.

I'd watch this movie.

Arnie voice: "Take de blue pill if you want to live."

I love this place.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Klaus]

Thanks for the reply. (Sorry my XP well is dry at the moment.)

The example you post seems to be of missile troops defeating a phalanx. I was thinking about melee combat. I thought that Celtic and Germanic skirmishers tended, on the whole, to fare poorly against Roman legions.

To clarify my views - and they're just that, my responses, and not anything that I would expect to generalise to other players:

* That missile troops are good against a phalanx of hobgoblins strikes me as realistic but a bit disappointing in terms of my preferred game play;

* That, in hand to hand, you have a better chance of defeating a phalanx of hobgoblins if you abandon your own formation strike me as odd - I'm still not sure why that is, in fictional terms.

It's a cool discussion to have!

The Wikipedia article constinues after the passage I quote, saying that phalanxes were also vulnerable to attacks from the sides or the rear, because they couldn't redeploy as easily.

As for the Celtics/Germanics vs. Roman legion: the Romans didn't fight in phalanxes, they had a series of specialized formations created to counter a wide variety of situations. Plus metal armor, cavalry, earthworks and a travelling infrastructure.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Holding off rules-arguing until Thursday, but if it's relevant, the 5E Rogue now appears to have the following SA progression:

1st +1d6
2nd +1d6
3rd +2d6
4th +2d6
5th +3d6

(Previously it was +1d6 until 5th when it became +2d6)

For me that means I can "buy" the damage a little bit more (esp. w/the 1d8 HP suggesting a Rogue-type specialist rather than a "tough" Fighter). I'd still describe it as ultra-specialized training, but I can buy it.

That said I would still personally treat Hobbies as CR2 in encounter design for the reasons discussed at huge length!

 

[Thaumaturge]

Holding off rules-arguing until Thursday, but if it's relevant, the 5E Rogue now appears to have the following SA progression:

I am now considering trying to provoke you into a rules argument of your "holding off rules-arguing" rule.

Thaumaturge.