Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8685975" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Right, same reason true strike is the worst spell in the game. And since this is a soft rule, when the PCs are fighting one lone ogre, it doesn’t have to blindly follow this rule. However, if the ogre has allies that don’t hit as hard, it’s often a very good move for one of them to use its action to grant the ogre advantage.Now, depending on the exact circumstances - how much the ogre and its ally both hit for, what their attack bonuses are, what the PCs’ ACs are, etc. this might be a net gain or a net loss in expected damage output. But the point of this rule (more of a guideline, really) isn’t to optimize damage output, it’s to put the DM in the mindset that, given the choice between attacking without advantage or using its action to create an advantage for itself and its allies, a monster should generally favor the latter.Sure, it’s a risk. But it’s a risk that makes the combat more dynamic, so it’s probably a good one for the monsters to take when they have the opportunity. This shouldn’t override common sense tactics, but it’s a good rule of thumb to help prevent combats from turning into slog fests where everyone stands still and throws d20s at each other until one side runs out of imaginary “don’t get killed” points.Yeah… I feel like the help action is a little against the spirit of this rule. Like, sure, it works to grant advantage to a heavier-hitting ally, but I think the point is to think more about how the monsters can use improvised actions to gain the upper hand. At least describe something interesting the monster is doing to help its ally, if nothing else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8685975, member: 6779196"] Right, same reason [I]true strike[/I] is the worst spell in the game. And since this is a soft rule, when the PCs are fighting one lone ogre, it doesn’t have to blindly follow this rule. However, if the ogre has allies that don’t hit as hard, it’s often a very good move for one of them to use its action to grant the ogre advantage. Now, depending on the exact circumstances - how much the ogre and its ally both hit for, what their attack bonuses are, what the PCs’ ACs are, etc. this might be a net gain or a net loss in expected damage output. But the point of this rule (more of a guideline, really) isn’t to optimize damage output, it’s to put the DM in the mindset that, given the choice between attacking without advantage or using its action to create an advantage for itself and its allies, a monster should generally favor the latter. Sure, it’s a risk. But it’s a risk that makes the combat more dynamic, so it’s probably a good one for the monsters to take when they have the opportunity. This shouldn’t override common sense tactics, but it’s a good rule of thumb to help prevent combats from turning into slog fests where everyone stands still and throws d20s at each other until one side runs out of imaginary “don’t get killed” points. Yeah… I feel like the help action is a little against the spirit of this rule. Like, sure, it works to grant advantage to a heavier-hitting ally, but I think the point is to think more about how the monsters can use improvised actions to gain the upper hand. At least describe something interesting the monster is doing to help its ally, if nothing else. [/QUOTE]

Verification