Being blind is already the same as, and doesn't stack with, being poisoned, frightened, and/or prone.
D&D 5E clunky crit and cover
- Thread starter evilbob
- Start date
Being blind is already the same as, and doesn't stack with, being poisoned, frightened, and/or prone.
Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
I know. That list seems long enough.
I am mostly ok with those conditions not stacking with each other. And I am mostly not ok with each of those conditions not stacking with cover.
I think because there is only so off-balance a trained warrior will let himself get, but if a guy ducks around a corner, there are certain physical laws in play.
Thaumaturge.
yes, You now double everything that is a dice, but not static modifiers.
Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
Including additional dice, like sneak attack.
Thaumaturge.
Thaumaturge.
am181d
Adventurer
Thanks! Since this rule rhymes ("Dice Twice") I deem it superior to all other possible (non-rhyming) rules.
Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
You don't like getting maximum damage ("Max Hacks")?
And I presume you would support a free Heroes Feast with every rest ("Fest Rest").
Thaumaturge.
What about "Max Attack!" ie maximum damage on a critical hit.
I dislike any critical hit rule that can do less damage than a normal hit, so criticals should be max damage plus something else.
Cover rules are the way they are so they work with advantage/disadvantage, also archers since shooting ranged attacks through people provides cover that would over penalize ranged characters. With soft or partial cover just being a +2 to targets AC, the archery fighting style of adding a +2 to hit cancels that cover out.
Re: Crits
In practice I rarely see a table use RAW crits. It's usually the first thing house ruled. They have to put something in the book. As far as the current iteration "taking longer"...1 out of every 20 attacks requiring another roll isn't much of a time sink IMO.
Re: Cover
IIRC Barbarians will have advantage when raging. Raging Barbarians would ignore cover if the adv/dis mechanic is used. They may be fine for some, but there are other cases, I forget (Was it rogue/assassin stuff?), that are similar to this. By going to a penalty it eliminates the strangeness that came up in playtests. I think cover as a penalty is one of those cases where playtest feedback determined the basic rule.
if you use disadvantage and full cover (3/4 cover) remember that Adv/Dis is effectively a sliding scale (ie adv when you need a Nat 20 to hit is effectively a +0.5 bonus where adv when you need a Nat 10 to hit is effectively a +5 bonus). A full plate wearing fighter behind an arrow slit is effectively AC 23 with RAW...but using Dis means an effective AC 20 which is easier to hit. A guy not wearing armor behind an arrow slit is just as easy to hit using a -5 penalty (+5 AC) or Disadvantage. Now add a rogues first strike ability which grants adv, and suddenly the arrow slit is not effective at all! Strangeness...
But do what floats your boat. Your Game, Your Way.
In practice I rarely see a table use RAW crits. It's usually the first thing house ruled. They have to put something in the book. As far as the current iteration "taking longer"...1 out of every 20 attacks requiring another roll isn't much of a time sink IMO.
Re: Cover
IIRC Barbarians will have advantage when raging. Raging Barbarians would ignore cover if the adv/dis mechanic is used. They may be fine for some, but there are other cases, I forget (Was it rogue/assassin stuff?), that are similar to this. By going to a penalty it eliminates the strangeness that came up in playtests. I think cover as a penalty is one of those cases where playtest feedback determined the basic rule.
if you use disadvantage and full cover (3/4 cover) remember that Adv/Dis is effectively a sliding scale (ie adv when you need a Nat 20 to hit is effectively a +0.5 bonus where adv when you need a Nat 10 to hit is effectively a +5 bonus). A full plate wearing fighter behind an arrow slit is effectively AC 23 with RAW...but using Dis means an effective AC 20 which is easier to hit. A guy not wearing armor behind an arrow slit is just as easy to hit using a -5 penalty (+5 AC) or Disadvantage. Now add a rogues first strike ability which grants adv, and suddenly the arrow slit is not effective at all! Strangeness...
But do what floats your boat. Your Game, Your Way.
evilbob
Adventurer
Thanks, jrowland. Those points make good sense. (Although I'm not bothered much by a first-striking rogue ignoring arrow slits, but that's another issue.)
I think our group in the playtests always stacked advantage/disadvantage for determining which you received; I know that's not how it is supposed to play (and technically it's more complex and slower - both things I dislike!) but that actually made more sense to us than 10 advantages being negated by 1 disadvantage. That probably informs my opinion on the cover rules as well.
I think our group in the playtests always stacked advantage/disadvantage for determining which you received; I know that's not how it is supposed to play (and technically it's more complex and slower - both things I dislike!) but that actually made more sense to us than 10 advantages being negated by 1 disadvantage. That probably informs my opinion on the cover rules as well.
Similar Threads
