D&D 5E 5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy

[DaveDash]

To be fair, the spell casters should try their best to bring the dragon to the ground. Otherwise, you are stacking the deck ahead of time and the exercise will illustrate nothing.

Yeah of course, the whole idea will be to bring the Dragon down using Bigby's/Telekinesis or whatever so Henry Handaxe can get in there.

However, I do note, that some posters claim Henry Handaxe simply doesn't need any help because hand axe's are fine.

We'll see how they go.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah of course, the whole idea will be to bring the Dragon down using Bigby's/Telekinesis or whatever so Henry Handaxe can get in there.

However, I do note, that some posters claim Henry Handaxe simply doesn't need any help because hand axe's are fine.

Do the fighters get magic hand axes?

 

[DaveDash]

Do the fighters get magic hand axes?

Sure. Returning hand axes! Because I am generous and nice, and I'll let the fighter die a horrible death with at least one weapon in his hand.

 

[KarinsDad]

Our battles take a while. That would be very hard to do. Everyone is so invested in optimal tactics that talking about what to do from round to round can take a bit. Our fights are hard enough that the players actually stress a bit around the table. When they try an optimal tactic and it gets countered, stress levels increase. Thus tactical discussion time increases. I imagine only Dave Dash probably plays similar to this. But we've been playing so long that playing a different way doesn't get the adrenaline going unless its a difficult fight that requires a lot of thinking, which slows the game down. Multiple deadly encounters would slow it to watching a slug crawl.

Interesting.

In our game, I have to tell a few players to shut the heck up. My daughter in particular and a friend of mine of 40 years both like to talk away "Try this, go there, do that".

I stop the game for a second and say "Karin, this is Mom's PC. Let Mom run her. You run your PC.".


Ahead of time planning, no problem. But in combat, I allow a little of it to go on, but there is no way I'd let players plan out tactics. If they do so, then the foes hear them and if the foes can understand them, they can try to counter them.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure. Returning hand axes! Because I am generous and nice, and I'll let the fighter die a horrible death with at least one weapon in his hand.

Cool.

 

[Celtavian]

After looking at it some more, I'm inspired by Hussar to make a str-based thrower. It won't be quite as good as archery. With our house rule that drawing thrown weapons isn't an issue, it might work. Sharpshooter eliminates the disadvantage for firing past short range. The big problem is carrying a lot of thrown weapons. Though no ammunition property does make it so the thrown weapons don't get destroyed.

Do most house rule the lack of ability to draw thrown weapons at a rate that allows multiple attacks?

 

[DaveDash]

Interesting.

In our game, I have to tell a few players to shut the heck up. My daughter in particular and a friend of mine of 40 years both like to talk away "Try this, go there, do that".

I stop the game for a second and say "Karin, this is Mom's PC. Let Mom run her. You run your PC.".


Ahead of time planning, no problem. But in combat, I allow a little of it to go on, but there is no way I'd let players plan out tactics. If they do so, then the foes hear them and if the foes can understand them, they can try to counter them.

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] is right. We do play like that. We have one game where we have three players, it's hard combats, and I encourage them to chat, plan, and strategize during combat. They always have Rarys Telepathic Bond up anyway, so there is 'in game' justification for it. That's a neat little ritual by the way, especially for directing spells and such into areas other players may not be able to see.

In our other game where I am a player though, there's 5 players. We do it a little bit, but not too much. Slows things down a bit more and it's a different style of game.

 

[DaveDash]

After looking at it some more, I'm inspired by Hussar to make a str-based thrower. It won't be quite as good as archery. With our house rule that drawing thrown weapons isn't an issue, it might work. Sharpshooter eliminates the disadvantage for firing past short range. The big problem is carrying a lot of thrown weapons. Though no ammunition property does make it so the thrown weapons don't get destroyed.

Do most house rule the lack of ability to draw thrown weapons at a rate that allows multiple attacks?

I allow my players to have a 'hand axe belt' where they can draw them and throw up to 5 at a time as per normal, but other than that they have to rummage around in their pack/bag of holding reloading it. Same goes with Javelins.

And yes, one of my players carries about 200 hand axes in his bag of holding. Got to spend that gold on something.

 

[KarinsDad]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] is right. We do play like that. We have one game where we have three players, it's hard combats, and I encourage them to chat, plan, and strategize during combat. They always have Rarys Telepathic Bond up anyway, so there is 'in game' justification for it. That's a neat little ritual by the way, especially for directing spells and such into areas other players may not be able to see.

If this ritual ever shows up in our game, I wouldn't allow the players to point to the grid. The PCs do not have large hands floating in the air, pointing the exact location where one PC wants another PC to move to, or alternatively, the exact location where one PC wants another PC to drop a Fireball. Just like in real conversation, it would be limited to what could be conveyed via conversation. Tell the other player what you are thinking of, but don't diagram it out over the grid.

 

[DaveDash]

If this ritual ever shows up in our game, I wouldn't allow the players to point to the grid. The PCs do not have large hands floating in the air, pointing the exact location where one PC wants another PC to move to, or alternatively, the exact location where one PC wants another PC to drop a Fireball. Just like in real conversation, it would be limited to what could be conveyed via conversation. Tell the other player what you are thinking of, but don't diagram it out over the grid.

Fair enough, I understand why you'd do that,

I don't mind them doing this. Like I said, I encourage metagame thinking in combat.