Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Treantmonklvl20" data-source="post: 7267314" data-attributes="member: 55582">I owe you an apology.  I thought you were trying to tell me that there was some kind of designer intention for multiple encounters between long rests, but you were honestly interested in my opinion.  I am embarrassed and hope you can accept my apology.Oh. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />Here's how an ad-hominem works:1) You make a claim2) I attack you instead of addressing the claim3) therefore the claim is false.Here's what happened:1) You made a claim2) I provided examples showing the claim was not true3) You being unaware of those examples made me question your experienceNot an ad-hominem.  Now, see, if I had suggested you didn't know what an ad-hominem works off the bat, rather than providing the specifics of how you had mistaken what I said for an ad-hominem, THAT would be an ad-hominem.I would argue the game is more interesting when we vary the number of encounters so the players don't know what to expect, but it's irrelevant.  The facts are that official campaign paths for 5e involve many single encounter days.  If the designers intended otherwise, then their intentions became irrelevant with their own product.I don't think so, but I will address your claims individually.I actually don't remember making the claim that the BS's allies will all die because the foe can ignore the BS.  If I did, it was an exaggeration, to tell you the reason for the exaggeration, I would need the quote and context.My actual non-exaggerated claim is that a non multiclass BS does not contribute effectively to the team effort when using a rapier, even moreso if he/she is concentrating on blur, which puts greater responsibility on other party members to pick up the slack in damage output.  The BS's failure to contribute effectively does not necessarily mean anyone else will die, it depends how effective the other party members are and how challenging the encounters.No, my claim was that a foe will tend to avoid attacks of opportunity or giving up actions for disengage unless there is a factor that creates a need to do these things.  Choosing to attack one of the BS's allies may or may not be one of those factors, but there are enough variables in combat to make it difficult to determine without specifics in terms of locations of everyone on the battlefield, who the enemy is, how many of them there are, etc.Assuming a foe will avoid harming itself without there being any incentive to do so is not "hedging", or is my assumption that there will not always be that incentive that you consider "hedging".  I really have no idea where you are coming from here.  This seems really obvious to me.You kept repeating a false claim that if an opponent moves, they provoke an attack of opportunity when this conversation began.  I provided disengage as an example of how an opponent can move without provoking an attack of opportunity, of course, it is not the only example, yet you've latched onto this as if it was my claim that opponents use disengage every time they move.  They don't.  Most movement doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity at all.  There are of course obvious exceptions.  Sometimes those exceptions involve an attack of opportunity.  Sometimes those exceptions involve disengaging to avoid that attack of opportunity.  Tactical movement in combat has nuance. I have NEVER claimed that an opponent ALWAYS moves in any specific way.  If you think I've said otherwise, one of us is wrong.  If I am wrong, show me the quote.If you can't find the quote, it is because you are mischaracterizing my position.Please stop.Hopefully this is clear as glass this time.Are you seriously telling me this is odd to you?  I really don't even know how to respond.  I'm going to have to ask for some help from any other posters who read this:  How unusual is it for an opponent to move in combat in a way that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity (or require a disengage?  I mean like moving within a threatened area without leaving it.  Am I the only one that find this happens reasonably frequently?  Or is vonklaude the only one who finds this is a very unusual circumstance?  Is it somewhere in the middle?  Please respond. Clearly just to refute your arguments.  Definitely not walls, or marching order, or ambush, or any other countless reasons.  Only to refute you.  Don't get in a sarcasm contest with me. There are many different types of battles, with many different positions, situations and factors.  I understand that kind of nuance makes it difficult for you to make universal claims, but that doesn't change that combats aren't all uniform.  Why that is equivalent to quantum electromagnetic particles in complexity for you I cannot answer. Of course it is a stretch, and not a small one either.  There are all kinds of variables I did not include, that does not mean I do not think they are possible, or ever relevant, it merely means I don't consider them the NORM.  Should I also include a comparison where the foe has cover?  If I don't, does that mean I am denying the possiblity that a foe will ever have cover?Feel free to do comparisons including any variables you wish, simply understand that in the case of an attack of opportunity, I think in most rounds, in most combats, that variable will not occur.  That does not mean I don't think it ever occurs.   Saying the concentration boost isn't needed is something that needs clarification.  The Wizard does not have Constitution save proficiency.  A Bladesinger is not likely to have an overly high constitution (tertiary ability score), there is an Int boost when Bladesong is up, which is a very necessary patch to a significant vulnerability, but I don't see it as 100% reliable.  Consider our 5th level Bladesinger: Int 16, Con 13 - that's a total +4 on a save that has a minimum DC of 10, and you are confident of that without advantage?  I wouldn't be, that's a 30% fail possiblity on DC10.That said, I agree with you that the Dex boost has a lot going for it, and is also a reasonable choice at this level.  Warcaster can always come later (or resilient)Depends how it fights.  BS has low HP and not great saving throws.  A.1: It might simply be drop BS after taking minimal damage and then move on to other opponent, tanking mission failureAgain, there are additional possibilities you are ignoringB.1: Opponent uses an ability like cunning action or nimble escape to disengage as a bonus action and keeps it's actionYes, I grant you this is one of many possibilitiesDoes not necessarily require a co-operative ally, though I provided multiple examples earlier this post, you can simply look at thoseE) Uses an ability like Misty Step to move to another opponentF) Simply switches to another opponent already adjacentetc.I'm not adding additional possibilities to suggest that any of those possibilities are MORE likely than the possibilities you've listed, I've added them to show that your list is not comprehensive.  I have undoubtedly missed possibilities as well.Feel freeLooking at our level 5 cleric, he's got con 14 (+2) and warcaster.  On a DC con save, that's an 84% chance of success on a 10, and the CL is going to have a pretty impressive AC too (assuming half plate and shield), not going to be a huge factor I would think. The 4 encounter day is OK for one example.That would depend on how the various possibilities were weighted.</blockquote>

Verification