D&D 5E D&D 5e Basic Set: Things that make you go "what?!"

[WizarDru]

Basically, you have a sword in your face *and* they aren't sitting still waiting for you to fire.

But...but...LEGOLAS.

It's worth noting that most range weapons have some requirement in terms of physical space and movement, too. Drawing the bow back, keeping the sling moving, holding the...atl-atl...hmm, moving on. My point being is that in close combat, it's easier for your opponent to mess with your weapon and you while shooting, too.

 

[Grydan]

I noticed this in play, rather than spotting it in the rules, but as it's a head-scratcher that exists as a consequence of the rules, I suppose it fits here.

When trying to prevent an opponent from attacking a more vulnerable party member or NPC (or even just trying to stop them from reaching a specific location), standing between the attacker and the target is less effective than standing on the attacker's far side.

We've been playing on a grid (we intended to try TotM but habits die hard and we've also got an active 4E campaign running), where the issue is more apparent, but it could manifest without it depending on how precise your group tracks positioning.

There are two squares (ten feet) separating the attacker from the target. Instinct (mine, anyway) says the defender (not in the 4E role sense, just in the general sense) should position themself in one of those squares.

However, if they pick the one closest to the target, the attacker is free to approach without provoking an attack, and may in fact be able (depending on how open the battlefield is) move around freely enough as to be in position to attack the target while leaving the defender needing to move again in order to reach them.

If they pick the one closer to the attacker, the attacker is still able to move within the defender's reach without reprisal, circling around to a position where they can attack the target. The defender is slightly better off here, as the attacker hasn't moved out of their reach, but the target is no better off.

But if the defender positions themself on the far side of the attacker such that the attacker is within their reach, the attacker cannot approach the target without provoking an attack from the defender. The only places they can move without reprisal at best gain them no ground and at worst (for them) take them further away.

It's entirely possible that forthcoming tactical modules address this, but for anyone not using those this situation will remain: standing between a melee attacker and their target is a less effective place to defend from than one might expect.

 

[the Jester]

The only trouble I can see with the sleep spell (and its meaner cousins the power word spells) is that there is an asymmetry with DM and Player knowledge. The DM might know what the PC's hp are when casting sleep but the PCs generally don't know what the NPC hp are beyond vague descriptions like "he seems to be breathing heavily and is covered with wounds, but is still attacking". So the PC has less information to guess when to use sleep than the DM has. Unless the DM plays open table where everyone knows everyone's current hp.

Someone else may have already hit this point, but a good dm won't use out-of-character knowledge for his npcs any more than a good player will use out-of-character knowledge for her pcs.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I noticed this in play, rather than spotting it in the rules, but as it's a head-scratcher that exists as a consequence of the rules, I suppose it fits here.

Always a problem with more open movement rules. However I always allow a player to Ready (in 5E speak) his move to interpose the PC. In this case he would say I will get in the way of any enemy moving to the XYZ. He physically blocks the enemy, he does get not opportunity attacks but can use his normal action to attack - however he may want to keep his action for using as movement (dash, so the enemy can't out maneuver him). The enemy can get around him by shoving him out of the way, killing him or (if he has more movement, i.e. faster) moving backwards 'n' forwards and around 'n' about more distance than the PC can cover. Not in the rules but common sense to me, I have used it (or similar) since BECMI.

 

[the Jester]

Average Joe's DM probably shouldn't be letting him re-try every round, and "Taking 20" doesn't seem to be a thing (or maybe I just overlooked it?).

This kind of thing seems an ideal place to import the "succeed before 3 failures" mechanic from 4e's skill challenges.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I noticed this in play, rather than spotting it in the rules, but as it's a head-scratcher that exists as a consequence of the rules, I suppose it fits here.

When trying to prevent an opponent from attacking a more vulnerable party member or NPC (or even just trying to stop them from reaching a specific location), standing between the attacker and the target is less effective than standing on the attacker's far side.

Yes, odd.

I don't have any rules in front of me (playtest or BASIC) but it seems trivial to allow a "Defender" an opportunity attack against a foe who attacks an adjacent ally. I'm strictly grid-based myself, but that seems a workable Theatre of the Mind solution.

You could require a feat or other "cost" on the part of the Defender, but that seems steep for what really should just be a combat option. You could shift some cost onto the defendee-- the wizard uses his reaction to "duck behind" the fighter, and the fighter uses his reaction for an opportunity attack.

 

[Herobizkit]

Has anyone touched on not being able to fight two-weapon style with non-light weapons, or Rogues not being able to use a Longsword for sneak attack (because it's neither finesse nor light)?

 

[evilbob]

The Opportunity Attack rules are definitely suited more toward ease of play, and less toward the way they worked before - where all movement and positioning was crucial and (sadly) turns took forever because people were constantly either resolving out-of-turn attacks or they were trying to avoid them. I don't mind this change because now, OAs are not designed to be the thing that a tank uses to protect the squishies; they are designed to punish someone for running away, and nothing more. If you want to protect your squishies, you'll want the Protection fighting style of the fighter or something similar (an actual reason to use a shield, yay!). Also, because positioning isn't as important - only running away is - that means you can leave your grid behind much easier.

However I always allow a player to Ready (in 5E speak) his move to interpose the PC.

Super technically, this won't work, since you can break up your move now. If you ready your action to intercept, unless the enemy has no movement left, they could move up, get intercepted, and then just move around you. Of course, that's sort of a crappy interpretation of the rules, and hopefully a GM would be nicer than that, but just throwing that out there.

Herobizkit: I counted rogues not being able to sneak attack with a ballista as a feature, not a bug. Seriously though, I have no problem with not being able to sneak attack with a longsword. Also helps solve multiclassing problems down the line.

 

[the Jester]

Has anyone touched on not being able to fight two-weapon style with non-light weapons, or Rogues not being able to use a Longsword for sneak attack (because it's neither finesse nor light)?

I think TWF is pretty well-balanced right now, but we might see a ranger subclass or fighting style that improves it. I wouldn't bet on it for balance reasons, though.

As for longsword sneak attacks, I would almost bet that the rogue will have a 'thug'-type option that allows it.

 

[evilbob]

Other funny things:

Potent Cantrip does nothing.

Faerie Fire is listed as a spell but isn't on a class list (just sort of funny).

Wish is mentioned in the Disintegrate text but there isn't a Wish spell. (Hopefully just an editing error.)