Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5895939" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>It means that they are denied their DEX bonus to AC in response to a condition inflicted on someone else.  Mechanically, this allows a rogue to sneak attack with every attack, getting a huge damage boost when he needs it the most.  The problem with this is that a literal translation of this mechanic into something in the game postulates that either: a) in response to the rogue being injured, his foes suddenly lose mobility, nimbleness, and quickness and become leaden lumps on the battlefield, or b) in response to the rogue being seriously injured he suddenly gains new and hitherto unguessed levels of finese, cunning, intelligence, and treachery in his fighting style.  But, it's one thing to imagine that someone who is injured enters some sort of beserk rage where they gain strength in exchange for a loss of rationality and rational self-protective instinct, and another thing to imagine that suddenly they are superhuman at feinting and have an instinct for getting around a foes defenses.   I suppose you could kludge together some sort of justification, but the point is that its obviously post-hoc justification for a mechanically interesting effect.  That annoys me, and so I'm similarly annoyed with feats like Monte's 'Book of Iron Might' that without real justification beyond the fact that it may be mechanically balanced to do so, the feat provides access to a manuever only usuable once per day.</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification