Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6326857" data-attributes="member: 18">I really hope these are just hanging out in the PHB. D&D with no Charge seems... wrong. CdG solved a lot of problems, and there needs to be some kind of "if the enemy cannot act, you can kill them" rule (beyond "common sense", because in a lot of this situations, the DM may feel "common sense" is different to the players, and it's usually going to be a combat issue).I'm not really happy with the grappling rules, but I can't honestly point to significantly better ones in any edition of D&D. So I'm a little vexed. I mean, a human can grapple a size L creature, and if they do so, they reduce that creature to 0 move, unless that creature takes an action to break it. Which seems a bit, like, whoa. I kind of like that it only takes one of your attacks, though, and it would mean you could use this to quite effectively lock down single S/M/L enemies if you had multiple attacks, because you could grab them and then continue hitting them.I hope the PHB has some rules for restraining grappled people - it doesn't have to be easy but it's too important to be a fiat issue.Yeah, this is really good, and pretty simple. It does put an awful lot of mechanical weight on the Athletics skill, though. Far more than it should bear, I feel - it makes this seem like a last-minute decision (it's not terrible, because most characters who have the STR to do this reliably WILL have Athletics, but it's a bit weird).I really dislike this. Hope it's in the PHB. All the class-specific stuff that imposed Disadvantage on enemies seemed to be better than it, too (using a Reaction, for example, instead of your Action, or hitting multiple enemies, or lasting for a long time), so I can't see "balance" as a reason, particularly. Unless they have a lot of enemies who rely on Advantage to be able to do anything good. Even then, though - if you're forcing a PC to blow an entire action every round to lock an enemy down, that seems like a fair trade-off.The stuff with the spell seemed like some real "rules for rules sake" to me. It's fiddly, and I don't think it enhances the game. It's really weird to see something like that in Basic, but not Charge.Interesting. Does it still provoke an OA?That is worth emphasizing, I hadn't quite processed it as working like that. Good stuff.I really really do not like this. Not only does it mean extra time and extra rolling (assuming your PCs normally roll damage at the same time as attack, rather than after, which I think is common), it means you can get old-fashioned worthless "criticals" which do less than normal max or even average damage, and it's not even really that unlikely with single-die weapons. Bleh. Even simple "double damage" is better, because that way you'd double the mods, which would pretty much guarantee above-average or above-normal damage.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/yawn.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":yawn:" title="Yawn    :yawn:" data-shortname=":yawn:" />Interesting side-effect of changing most spells back to saves, I didn't think about this, but it means most spells cannot crit, whereas crit'ing with spells was like, a standard thing, in 4E.</blockquote>

Verification