D&D 5E If I'm human, can I multiclass into Commoner to get Mob Tactics?
Probably not, unless a generous DM houserules it in. Of course, they could also be mean and reduce your bonus to hit and hit points to make the choice balanced as it is for the Commoner "monster". Or I could suggest that the multiclass "Commoner" doesn't get this handy feature until 3 levels are taken in it, and it otherwise is fairly useless to an adventurer.
Irrespective of what the rationale might be, monster traits and attacks appear to be built using a slightly different base system to PCs.
Irrespective of what the rationale might be, monster traits and attacks appear to be built using a slightly different base system to PCs.
Someone
Adventurer
That's not a bug, it's a feature. After facing countless dangers and defeating armies of enemies, your group notices that this well-oiled 4 man killing machine never archieves the coordination and group tactics of an impromptu mob of untrained commoners.
Which means they must have some kind of hive mind. All this time, the humans you've trusted and interacted with every day, were actually possessed by a mysterious alien intelligence.
Which means they must have some kind of hive mind. All this time, the humans you've trusted and interacted with every day, were actually possessed by a mysterious alien intelligence.
Or you could view that commoners getting a measly +0 to hit by default is in fact a steep penalty, due to low morale, organisation and expertise, which they offsets quickly due to them working together (i.e. the effect scales more quickly than the "aid another" action allows for other creatures).
After all, even surrounded by 5 commoners all getting +5, they still are each individually much weaker in melee than a fighter, cleric or rogue.
So I'd say "yes" to mob tactics for PCs with a feat that grants a -1 penalty to attack, offset by +1 for each ally adjacent to the same enemy. How many players would take it then?
After all, even surrounded by 5 commoners all getting +5, they still are each individually much weaker in melee than a fighter, cleric or rogue.
So I'd say "yes" to mob tactics for PCs with a feat that grants a -1 penalty to attack, offset by +1 for each ally adjacent to the same enemy. How many players would take it then?
FireLance
Legend
Actually, I think that getting a +0 to hit is adequately explained by a +0 Strength modifier (for Strength 10) and no weapon training.
FireLance
Legend
Yeah, it's like they were all controlled by a single supreme overbeing, or something.
Assuming you need it to be consistent monster/PC, then maybe mob tactics doesn't stack with weapon training? I.e. it's an alternative way to get the same type of melee bonuses, and represents a completely different way of fighting (which, by the fluff it pretty much does).
So a PC who gained it would then only switch to it when they had an enemy surrounded with 3 allies.
Last edited:
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Actually, i would like mob tactics to be a base feature of the game. Which should take the flanking place. This way, ganging up would give you an advantage, cancelling out the total defense action.
So whever a party outnumbers the foes in melee combat, everyone gets a bonus. Solo monsters could have a trait, that negates such mob tactics.
So whever a party outnumbers the foes in melee combat, everyone gets a bonus. Solo monsters could have a trait, that negates such mob tactics.
Tony Vargas
Legend
This isn't a bad idea, but it really gets into tone and style. In Hero, for instance, the DM can decide to give multiple attackers a bonus for out-numbering their target, or a penalty for 'getting in eachothers way' (for instance in a kung-fu-movie inspired campaign, where the bad guys surround the hero, but then attack one at a time...). So, you could have options:
Multiple Attacker Bonus: 'Realistic' game where numerical advantage can be overwhelming.
Multiple Attacker Penalty: 'Heroic' game where hordes of lesser foes are so much chaff.
Flanking/Aiding-Another: 'Team' game where tactical positioning and cooperation are rewarded.
Kinak
First Post
If there's a "D) Remove Mob Tactics entirely" option, I'd take that. It probably wouldn't be as bad as a player, but I don't want to track +1s and +2s as a DM.
I would much rather see something like:
Mob Tactics: If creatures with Mob Tactics entirely surround a target, they may roll damage as though one of them had hit (chosen at random) rather than making individual attacks.
There's some imprecision in the "entirely surround" wording but, basically, if you can't move because of a wall of Human Commoners, they can all roll to hit individually or they can "swarm" and deal damage as though one had hit you.
With abilities like that, you can keep the tactical value of Mob Tactics while actually decreasing bookkeeping.
Cheers!
Kinak
I would much rather see something like:
Mob Tactics: If creatures with Mob Tactics entirely surround a target, they may roll damage as though one of them had hit (chosen at random) rather than making individual attacks.
There's some imprecision in the "entirely surround" wording but, basically, if you can't move because of a wall of Human Commoners, they can all roll to hit individually or they can "swarm" and deal damage as though one had hit you.
With abilities like that, you can keep the tactical value of Mob Tactics while actually decreasing bookkeeping.
Cheers!
Kinak
Similar Threads
