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="Celtavian" data-source="post: 5069340" data-attributes="member: 5834">Because the trip feature of wolves and dogs was worked in because the game designers knew this is how such animals fight. If you watch any specials on dog and wolf packs, you see they lock on their jaws and try to pull the prey down. So this is a mechanical means to simulate this real world fighting style.Whereas giving gnolls +5 damage when attacking in a pack simulates nothing. A fighting style of a pack of gnolls would be something like "The gnolls use hook spears to bring prey to the ground, then set upon them until they are dead". That would incorporate a trip type attack and a pack training mindset that is easily simulated in either 4E or 3E, but doesn't incorporate an unexplainable bonus like +5 damage for no real good reason.A fighting style should be a fighting style. I don't mind humanoids getting one. Tossing in bonuses for the sake of differentiation is lazy game design in my opinion. If their fighting as a pack, then give them some of the tactical feats that give bonuses while flanking for working as a group to simulate the fighting style. Flat damage bonuses are pretty nebulous. The gnoll swings his short sword and gets +5 damage because his pal is also swinging his short sword? Why not just give them an innate sneak attack ability if they are hitting vital points? Why make it a flat number? Why wouldn't a higher level gnoll be even better at pack fighting? Seemed way to much like giving a bonus to differentiate versus thinking about how a gnoll pack fights. That is what 4E did alot of. Cool Crunch over Logical Crunch. I prefer logical crunch that at least attempts to make sense.</blockquote>

Verification