Chozon1 wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:26 pm
I've been playing the tablet version, and really enjoying it. I'd like to get the PC version if I had a compy that could play it.
Sidescroller 40K games?
That sounds..... odd.... but I grew up on side scrollers so why not?
Deepfreeze32 wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2017 9:22 pm
Have you gotten to play around with Java 8 (or 9) yet? If so, what do you think of the features they added?
I haven't messed with it yet but I understand you can now pass methods as parameters... noice...
5e rogues have Sneak Attack. Which is a normal thing for rogues to have. But because flanking is not part of the base game (At least my DM tells me this, I have no idea if it's part of the game he's ignoring), and as I understand it (The DM explained it to me since I haven't played a rogue) the sneak attack bonus takes effect when the rogue has advantage (Ok with this, makes perfect sense), or is attacking an enemy who is adjacent to an ally of the rogue.
This means that two rogues can be right next to each other, attacking a guy who is clearly facing both of them, and both of them getting sneak attack.
Excuse me, but what the frak kind of sense does that make? I understand that sneak attack is a critical (heh) part of a rogue's kit, but that situation I described does not in any way resemble being "sneaky." Sneak attack always felt like being backstabby, which is why it made sense when flanking was a thing. You're taking advantage of a distracted opponent by getting behind them. The two rogues situation makes sense because the character turns to face the guy who backstabbed him, leaving him open for another backstab. But this adjacency rule seems silly when a heavily armored paladin is facing two rogues head-on, who get sneak attack off of being next to each other.
People complain about 4e all the time, but at least 4e kept the gorram flanking rules (Sneak attack in 4e required advantage, which was granted from flanking)! Like, at least make them roll a stealth check against my perception before getting sneak attack or something, calling this "sneak attack" is an insult to the word "sneak." I seriously almost quit the campaign after that session because of how irrationally angry the sneak attack changes made me as described by the DM.
I want to try and understand where the rules are coming from and be a less grouchy player. So with an open mind, I ask:
Why do you think (Or is there an official explanation for why) flanking was removed from 5e? Why was sneak attack's flanking requirement replaced with a simple adjacency requirement? And is there any sort of explanation for how it works? Or did my DM misunderstand the rules?
I just want to understand why the rules are the way they are! lol
Deepfreeze32 wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:56 pm
I want to gripe about something D&D real quick.
5e rogues have Sneak Attack. Which is a normal thing for rogues to have. But because flanking is not part of the base game (At least my DM tells me this, I have no idea if it's part of the game he's ignoring), and as I understand it (The DM explained it to me since I haven't played a rogue) the sneak attack bonus takes effect when the rogue has advantage (Ok with this, makes perfect sense), or is attacking an enemy who is adjacent to an ally of the rogue.
This means that two rogues can be right next to each other, attacking a guy who is clearly facing both of them, and both of them getting sneak attack.
Excuse me, but what the frak kind of sense does that make? I understand that sneak attack is a critical (heh) part of a rogue's kit, but that situation I described does not in any way resemble being "sneaky." Sneak attack always felt like being backstabby, which is why it made sense when flanking was a thing. You're taking advantage of a distracted opponent by getting behind them. The two rogues situation makes sense because the character turns to face the guy who backstabbed him, leaving him open for another backstab. But this adjacency rule seems silly when a heavily armored paladin is facing two rogues head-on, who get sneak attack off of being next to each other.
People complain about 4e all the time, but at least 4e kept the gorram flanking rules (Sneak attack in 4e required advantage, which was granted from flanking)! Like, at least make them roll a stealth check against my perception before getting sneak attack or something, calling this "sneak attack" is an insult to the word "sneak." I seriously almost quit the campaign after that session because of how irrationally angry the sneak attack changes made me as described by the DM.
I want to try and understand where the rules are coming from and be a less grouchy player. So with an open mind, I ask:
Why do you think (Or is there an official explanation for why) flanking was removed from 5e? Why was sneak attack's flanking requirement replaced with a simple adjacency requirement? And is there any sort of explanation for how it works? Or did my DM misunderstand the rules?
I just want to understand why the rules are the way they are! lol
I think your DM is a bit confused. Flanking IS in 5E. All characters get advantage on attacks if an ally is on the other side of the target from them, regardless of what class they are. Thus, the Rogue gets the bonus because he has advantage in that situation. 2 Allies attacking the same side of an enemy does NOT confer advantage.
The section my DM called attention to is this one:
You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll.
The problem I have is that "Within 5 feet" doesn't make sense for every situation. Take the following grid, where x is empty, T is target, and R is rogue:
XXX
XTX
XRR
By the rules stated, both rogues should get sneak attack bonus. I could see it making sense for a more oblique angle, like so:
XXX
XTR
XRX
As written, I can see where he got that, but the rules as written don't make sense to me. Why does that paragraph exist?
Deepfreeze32 wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:27 pm
As written, I can see where he got that, but the rules as written don't make sense to me. Why does that paragraph exist?
I think the idea is supposed to be that the target is distracted by having an ally nearby. Essentially it allows the Rogue to do his thing without having to flank.
How do you feel about the various Star Wars RPG systems?
Or for that matter, GURPS?
I'm really wanting to try to run a Republic/Imperial Commando type campaign, but I'm not sure if one of the existing Star Wars systems would work, or if it would be better to hack around with GURPS/roll my own system.
Deepfreeze32 wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:57 am
How do you feel about the various Star Wars RPG systems?
Or for that matter, GURPS?
I'm really wanting to try to run a Republic/Imperial Commando type campaign, but I'm not sure if one of the existing Star Wars systems would work, or if it would be better to hack around with GURPS/roll my own system.
I used to play the old OLD OLD Star Wars system from back in the day, which I believe is completely different from the current one so I don't really have much useful insight for you on that... though I will say that one of my complaints about the old one is that too much emphasis was placed on the ability to use the Force, considering how rare that's supposed to be. I had the same gripe about the MMO Star Wars:Galaxies.
Chozon1 wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:09 am
Well, you can build from diagrams/blueprints. I do that from time to time.
Chozon1 wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:53 am
Awesome! Congratulations! ^_^
Thanks!
Deepfreeze32 wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:51 pm
Indeed! I'm currently trying to save money for a house down payment, and it's kind of surreal to be thinking about it.
