Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashkelon" data-source="post: 6649917" data-attributes="member: 6774887">To each his own. I love shaken as a way to model any kind of distraction in combat from &quot;sand in the eyes&quot;, to feints and bluffs, to combat intimidation. Some people like things to be more specific, I get that.As for called shots in D&amp;D, I completely agree. They don't make sense with HP, and I am glad D&amp;D doesn't typically include them.&nbsp;Is a basic attack with a conditional prone rider better than your other at-wills? Sometimes...maybe. There are a lot of good at wills out there. Some of them even knock enemies prone without needing an additional skill check.&nbsp;And why is knocking things down being easy a bad thing? Do your players have no imagination at all? Have you seriously never tripped over a small object? The bigger they are, the harder they fall afterall. It is easy to imagine hitting an enemy in the right place to send them tumbling over.&nbsp;I realized I had mispoke when I said STR contest before. Because the fighter isn't trying to force the giant over with brute strength, but rather with a well placed hit, I would have had the fighter roll Athletics but the giant would roll Acrobatics to stay standing. This is all in addition to the basic attack.And you prove my point. There is no way for a 5e fighter to knock over a giant by raw. There is also no way for the fighter to attack AND knock the giant over without losing efficacy of his basic attack. So you originally stated that the player had to use his action to knock the giant over, thus getting no attacks, you now say the player cannot knock the giant over. Why would players improvise at all when you have no chance to succeed?I've been playing 5e for a while now and the trend I have noticed is to focus on complete obliteration of enemies HP through stacking accuracy bonuses (bless, advantage, etc) with GWM and SS. Why waste an action improvising when HP damage can simply eliminate a foe.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashkelon, post: 6649917, member: 6774887"] To each his own. I love shaken as a way to model any kind of distraction in combat from "sand in the eyes", to feints and bluffs, to combat intimidation. Some people like things to be more specific, I get that. As for called shots in D&D, I completely agree. They don't make sense with HP, and I am glad D&D doesn't typically include them. Is a basic attack with a conditional prone rider better than your other at-wills? Sometimes...maybe. There are a lot of good at wills out there. Some of them even knock enemies prone without needing an additional skill check. And why is knocking things down being easy a bad thing? Do your players have no imagination at all? Have you seriously never tripped over a small object? The bigger they are, the harder they fall afterall. It is easy to imagine hitting an enemy in the right place to send them tumbling over. I realized I had mispoke when I said STR contest before. Because the fighter isn't trying to force the giant over with brute strength, but rather with a well placed hit, I would have had the fighter roll Athletics but the giant would roll Acrobatics to stay standing. This is all in addition to the basic attack. And you prove my point. There is no way for a 5e fighter to knock over a giant by raw. There is also no way for the fighter to attack AND knock the giant over without losing efficacy of his basic attack. So you originally stated that the player had to use his action to knock the giant over, thus getting no attacks, you now say the player cannot knock the giant over. Why would players improvise at all when you have no chance to succeed? I've been playing 5e for a while now and the trend I have noticed is to focus on complete obliteration of enemies HP through stacking accuracy bonuses (bless, advantage, etc) with GWM and SS. Why waste an action improvising when HP damage can simply eliminate a foe. [/QUOTE]

Verification