D&D 5E Have shared actions returned in 5e?

[RotGrub]

No you said "Balance at the expense of believability will be rebuked at my table."

So rogue is in a relatively featureless room, is hit dead-on with a fireball, and dodges 100% of it using his evasion ability. How is that believable to you, and assuming it is not, what did you do to rebuke it at your table?

It's not. I hate that feat. The simple fix is to require some form of cover to be within 10 feet of the rogue. Of course, I'm not a 3.5e / PF player

So to be clear, if it doesn't make sense it gets house ruled. If the game requires pages of house rules we don't play it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A necromancer, a beast master, a fighter, and a warlock all walk into a bar...

The necromancer's skeleton requires a bonus action.
The beast master must spend his action to direct his beast
The warlock must spend an attack every round.
The fighter sits back and laughs at them because his hireling is completely autonomous and follows orders.

No he doesn't. Because the Fighter doesn't get the hireling as part of his class, and as a result, doesn't guarantee that player the right to actually play and maneuver the hireling. Most likely, the DM is going to operate it as an NPC.

And besides which... if the DM *does* allow the Fighter's player to operate the hireling as well because he spent the gold to hire him... then ANY of players in the party can hire their own guy and they all laugh together. The Beastmaster ranger gets to operate an animal using his actions *and* a hireling using its autonomous actions. So your example doesn't mean much.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not. I hate that feat. The simple fix is to require some form of cover to be within 10 feet of the rogue. Of course, I'm not a 3.5e / PF player

So to be clear, if it doesn't make sense it gets house ruled. If the game requires pages of house rules we don't play it.

It's not a feat it's a core class ability. But OK, you'd nerf it.

High level player falls of a cliff. Hits the rocks far below, gets up with barely a scratch relative to his total hit points. Now what?

 

[Li Shenron]

I totally agree. In fact, NPC hirelings are preferred.

Yes but at the same time I differentiate between hirelings/mercenaries/trained animals (i.e. acquired via RP or money) VS companions/cohorts/familiars (i.e. acquired via class features or feats etc.) by the fact that in case of the latter I guarantee complete loyalty and reliability.

 

[Blackbrrd]

It's not. I hate that feat. The simple fix is to require some form of cover to be within 10 feet of the rogue. Of course, I'm not a 3.5e / PF player

So to be clear, if it doesn't make sense it gets house ruled. If the game requires pages of house rules we don't play it.

Then I don't think D&D is the game for you, because it's really far away for being a simulation. HP for instance, makes little sense.

 

[RotGrub]

Then I don't think D&D is the game for you, because it's really far away for being a simulation. HP for instance, makes little sense.

Really? I'm not having such issues with 2e.

 

[RotGrub]

It's not a feat it's a core class ability. But OK, you'd nerf it.

High level player falls of a cliff. Hits the rocks far below, gets up with barely a scratch relative to his total hit points. Now what?

Changing the topic to hit points? Why are you doing that? You do realize that every time you point out a flaw with the game, I'll simply make a house rule so it does make sense.

In that situation 2e will force you to make a system shock roll or die and then I'll have you roll a saving throw for all your equipment vs crushing blow. Heck if you continue to complain I'll pull out the players option critical hit tables and we can roll critical hits on several different body locations.

 

[RotGrub]

No he doesn't. Because the Fighter doesn't get the hireling as part of his class, and as a result, doesn't guarantee that player the right to actually play and maneuver the hireling. Most likely, the DM is going to operate it as an NPC.

And besides which... if the DM *does* allow the Fighter's player to operate the hireling as well because he spent the gold to hire him... then ANY of players in the party can hire their own guy and they all laugh together. The Beastmaster ranger gets to operate an animal using his actions *and* a hireling using its autonomous actions. So your example doesn't mean much.

You're right he isn't required to waste a class feature on something he can just spend gold on.

Regardless, I was simply trying to point out how inconsistent the rules are across all levels of support.

 

[RotGrub]

No he doesn't. Because the Fighter doesn't get the hireling as part of his class, and as a result, doesn't guarantee that player the right to actually play and maneuver the hireling. Most likely, the DM is going to operate it as an NPC.

And besides which... if the DM *does* allow the Fighter's player to operate the hireling as well because he spent the gold to hire him... then ANY of players in the party can hire their own guy and they all laugh together. The Beastmaster ranger gets to operate an animal using his actions *and* a hireling using its autonomous actions. So your example doesn't mean much.

You're right he isn't required to waste a class feature on something he can just spend gold on.

Regardless, I was simply trying to point out how inconsistent the rules are across all levels of support.

 

[Grazzt]

In that situation 2e will force you to make a system shock roll or die and then I'll have you roll a saving throw for all your equipment vs crushing blow. Heck if you continue to complain I'll pull out the players option critical hit tables and we can roll critical hits on several different body locations.

House rule? Cause I don't recall 2e mentioning System Shock roll to avoid dying from a fall.