D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 12/13/13

[tuxgeo]

I did not see a thread about this, so here goes:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131213

1. CON saves against breaking concentration.
2. Changes in CON reflected in Hit Points?
3. Positional effects in combat.

 

[Warbringer]

Doesn't the latter pretty much answer the former ... Now add a consequence for what happens when that cover is hit ... And it should be easier to hit something when there is a crowd in melee, just harder to make sure what that something is...

Ranged Attacks in Melee: As Mike discussed in Legends & Lore, we’re considering multiple methods of dealing with this. Though exact details are ongoing, we think it’s likely that there will be some consequence for making a ranged attack while engaged in melee. We do not intend to use opportunity attacks here because we want to keep opportunity attacks as streamlined as possible.

Ranged Attacks Against Opponents Engaged in Melee with Allies: Right now, your allies can provide cover to creatures you are attacking at range, and we think that’s enough of a penalty. If you can maneuver so that the monster is between you and your ally, great! You’ve played well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's interesting that he cited Flanking as something heavily grid reliant. In my 3e/4e TotM games, flanking (and a host of other combat positioning shenanigans) were covered by the action economy: you can spend a move action when you are in melee to gain it, or to remove yourself from it.

That's easy enough for me to add back in, and I can't say I'll be sad to see questions that rely on drawing imaginary lines get shunted firmly to a tactical module, but I'm a little surprised no one thought of how that might be modeled without doinking around with a grid.

 

[Kobold Stew]

If you can maneuver so that the monster is between you and your ally, great! You’ve played well.

Does anyone else find this a really weird statement? The paternalistic "You've played well", especially when tied to a simplistic combat tactic (rather than assuming a role creatively, or making a dynamic or innovative character) seems fatuous but also a bit insulting.

 

[Halivar]

Does anyone else find this a really weird statement? The paternalistic "You've played well", especially when tied to a simplistic combat tactic (rather than assuming a role creatively, or making a dynamic or innovative character) seems fatuous but also a bit insulting.

It's text on the internet, and as the saying goes, notoriously bad for conveying attitude or tone of voice. I would suggest only that you read this line in the context of whether or not MM has a history of casually insulting people who ask him questions, which I have no indication of being the case.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It's text on the internet, and as the saying goes, notoriously bad for conveying attitude or tone of voice. I would suggest only that you read this line in the context of whether or not MM has a history of casually insulting people who ask him questions, which I have no indication of being the case.

First, it's not MM, it's RT.

I'm choosing read RT's answer in the context of the article itself, which is answering a generic question. I'm not suggesting he is casually doing anything: but it does feel (to me) insulting -- not to the anonymous questioner, as you suggest, but to every reader of the article who plays the game.

 

[Halivar]

Ah, sorry, I thought MM did the Q&A.

 

[MJS]

The stuff about prone targets really suggests too many chefs to the point of farce.
After much deliberation, we might decide that a prone target is at disadvantage. Nicely done.

Con check for concentration - while I use saving throws, myself , which I find a better "check" mechanic than ability scores, does this imply we have returned to casting times in 5E? That'd be a good thing.

 

[TerraDave]

Does anyone else find this a really weird statement? The paternalistic "You've played well", especially when tied to a simplistic combat tactic (rather than assuming a role creatively, or making a dynamic or innovative character) seems fatuous but also a bit insulting.

Obviously its a simple example...but why would I put more weight on something that happens outside the session (charbuild) or outside of one of its main activities (combat)?

 

[Kinak]

Flanking: "This isn’t in the core rules of the game since flanking relies far too heavily on a grid to be included by default."

Cover: "If you can maneuver so that the monster is between you and your ally, great!"

Does that read as strangely to anyone else as it does for me? Those seem entirely contradictory to me.

Cheers!
Kinak