I will skip the insults to focus on the mechanical nightmare you touched on.
So what do you have a problem with? Players creating a shield wall in order to advance in relative safety, or the way this idea was adjudicated?
The concept of a shield wall, while problematic, breaks no rules. Said shield wall heavily nerfs the group's firepower, while providing zero mechanical benefit, assuming it is played by anything close to the basic rules of the game. But the players involved can do it.
Oh, so you're fine with Shield Walls as long as they don't do anything besides look cool, then?
My party has used shield walls before. We've ruled that it takes your Bonus Action every round to sustain, and it grants 3/4ths cover to anyone behind the wall of shields. This is a house rule, but still resembles the core rules.
I think that shield walls thematically are idiotic, since D&D shields are nothing like a Roman Legion's shields. They are not interlocking and Medium players occupy a 5 foot zone of control, not wield a shield 5 feet wide. But if players want to form a wall that nerfs their capabilities, as long as it conforms to the basic mechanics of the game, I really can't say much about them. I have already explained that they serve no mechanical purpose in the game, and by RAW, completely nerf a group's firepower. But if a player is a selfish player who wants to nerf the group for the sake of something "cool", and follows within the rules of Action Economy, like I said, nothing I can do about that.
This situation was NOT that case. This was something that made a total mockery of Action economy.
As for your group's House Rule, well knock yourself out. As a DM I would never, ever allow anything like you described, because once again, they destroy a basic rule of 5e.
Why not? Why can't D&D shields be like the shields of the Roman Legion? There's no description of what the 5e shield looks like in the PHB, and is assumed to represent bucklers, lantern shields, tower shields, and all other varieties of real world shields. Now, if your meaning is that they don't automatically assume those forms and unless it was planned beforehand, your party wouldn't be able to do it on the fly, I agree with that. My group spent time and money designing these shields and distributing them amongst our army so they could use shield walls.
They don't destroy the basic rules of 5e, though. It is completely logical that holding up a shield similarly shaped to those of the Roman Legion in a shield wall formation would grant 3/4ths cover to those behind the shield wall. This is part of the 5e rules. The bonus action was added by my DM because a) he didn't want it to be free, and b) it doesn't make sense to spend your whole action readying it to wait for the group to move.
You are blinded by hatred, Vince. You hate anything that so much as smells as being outside of the PHB/DMG, and will make up any reason to justify your hatred. Stop. There's no need for it and it's unhealthy.
I will skip the insults to focus on the mechanical nightmare you touched on.
So what do you have a problem with? Players creating a shield wall in order to advance in relative safety, or the way this idea was adjudicated?
The concept of a shield wall, while problematic, breaks no rules. Said shield wall heavily nerfs the group's firepower, while providing zero mechanical benefit, assuming it is played by anything close to the basic rules of the game. But the players involved can do it.
What you describe is not a shieldwall. It's literally nothing but negatives. "Walking in tandem", by the rules, comes down to everyone moving at the speed of the slowest member of the party on the initiative of the slowest member of the party in the initiative order, doing nothing else at all, for no benefit whatsoever other than "we're moving in tandem". I can certainly agree the way it was handled by your DM was bad, but I think there's room for some middle ground between that and gimping yourself for no reason. I mean, by the rules it's literally not possible to run across an open field in group or to wait for a signal and both move and act in response to it. If you're ready to move across an open field on my command you can't move more than your speed, while if you move on your own you can move and dash. To me, that seems silly.
I think we agree on general principles.
Readied Actions is likely one of the more abused/ misunderstood rules within the game. But at the same time, one Reaction/turn for a player is very straightforward. If this had happened:
DM's NPC N moves forward, does whatever, and waits for the rest of the group.
Player A runs up to end movement beside N, doing whatever during or after movement, but ends his turn beside N.
Player C has the same freedom of action as player A, but also ends his turn beside A and N;
That would have been perfectly within RAW's Action Economy, while preserving the same "theme" of this shield wall (their term, not mine).
If a group, or more precisely, a DM, wants to alter the Readied Action to some House Rule, I can visualize it, as long as it is reasonable. I am well aware what is reasonable to me is far far different to some player who hates rules of any kind. But such House Rules MUST be laid out ahead of time, as it is such a key element to the game. And bringing this around again, if a DM told me he had a House Rule that Dim Light causes Attacks at Disadvantage, I would say "what happens with Attacks in Darkness?"
But this is all moot. The DM laid out zero House Rules, and apparently feels no need to, since they just get in the way of him being pleasantly surprised by the players.
Imagine his "pleasant surprise" when my Halfling Rogue pulls out a Whip (took one level of Fighter for that express purpose), and then uses the Skirmisher Feature, then an Opportunity Attack at 10 feet, and finally, Uncanny Dodge, all in the same turn, because it is "cool".
DM's NPC N moves forward, does whatever, and waits for the rest of the group.
Player A runs up to end movement beside N, doing whatever during or after movement, but ends his turn beside N.
Player C has the same freedom of action as player A, but also ends his turn beside A and N;
That would have been perfectly within RAW's Action Economy, while preserving the same "theme" of this shield wall (their term, not mine).
Erm... I what way preserves this the theme of a shield wall? "Ending your turn adjacent to another PC" equals shield wall?
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e. And mechanically, if done by RAW, serves no purpose. So you have got me on this one. I guess the only real answer is "unless players and a DM want to throw out RAW and create something out of the rule of cool", there is no such thing as a shield wall.
My party has used shield walls before. We've ruled that it takes your Bonus Action every round to sustain, and it grants 3/4ths cover to anyone behind the wall of shields. This is a house rule, but still resembles the core rules.
But they can still perform actions? Does this include casting spells with Somatic components? That would seem to violate the principle of the shield wall, which is that everyone is static and standing elbow to elbow and holding the shields up in perfect alignment. The second someone moves the shield to cast Fireball or something, using a bunch of gesticulations for the somatic gesture, that breaks the wall -- or it should.
Heck I even have a Roman campaign and I would probably not allow my players to create a shield wall, as doing so violates too many of the principles of the rules as written. For example, your shield already gives you +2 AC. To rule that if you stand next to someone else whose shield also grants him +2 AC, and that together now the two of you have, in addition to the +2 AC, 3/4 cover as well from ranged attacks, would appear to be double dipping. I'd argue that at best, you could either get the +2 AC to every attack, or the 3/4 cover bonus against ranged attacks coming from the front-facing direction (whichever one of the 4 grid directions your characters are both or all facing) but you can't have both. What are the chances that in the original post they lost their +2 AC bonus from the shield? Bet they didn't. So now they are trying to get +5 AC off of a +2 AC shield by a "flavor move" that has no codification in the rules. Nope, I wouldn't allow it.
What I might do, instead, for the Roman Legions, is give Roman soldiers some sort of special ability called "Shield Wall" that they could burn like an Action Surge, a certain # of times per battle. Or I might give it to my Strongholds and Followers legion units, something like "Shield Wall - ranged units have disadvantage on their Power tests against this unit unless it is currently Engaged with a melee unit."
But for PCs in a battle? Only way they get some kind of "Shield Wall" bonus is if they give up the+2 AC in general that the shield provides -- because the ability to deflect ranged attacks with the shield is already baked into the +2. That's what it's there for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
But once the ruling happens in game, I personally will think it out and write it up as an actual rule, worded with as much technical language as I think necessary, and publish it on your World Anvil site, so that everyone knows how it will work from now on.
Just an FYI, but there's lots of players that will look at such a list and lose any and all interest in playing a game with you. Lots of people just aren't inclined to memorize giant list of house rules - they consider that more homework than playing.
So, suggesting that making a list of every one of your house calls and formalizing it can actually be extremely detrimental to the fun of the game. And its not something most players would consider the norm in a game.
Then don't be shocked and hurt when something bad happens to your char and the DM said "It is right there in the House Rules." You say "I did not read them, so they don't apply to me", will get you laughed out of a group.
My party has used shield walls before. We've ruled that it takes your Bonus Action every round to sustain, and it grants 3/4ths cover to anyone behind the wall of shields. This is a house rule, but still resembles the core rules.
But they can still perform actions? Does this include casting spells with Somatic components? That would seem to violate the principle of the shield wall, which is that everyone is static and standing elbow to elbow and holding the shields up in perfect alignment. The second someone moves the shield to cast Fireball or something, using a bunch of gesticulations for the somatic gesture, that breaks the wall -- or it should.
Yes, they can perform actions. When the Romans were using a shield wall they would use swords/spears to attack those in front of them. No one in the shield was were spellcasters, but if they were, they would have to be clerics/paladins to perform somatic components for spells and have their shield be a spellcasting focus in order to do so.
Heck I even have a Roman campaign and I would probably not allow my players to create a shield wall, as doing so violates too many of the principles of the rules as written. For example, your shield already gives you +2 AC. To rule that if you stand next to someone else whose shield also grants him +2 AC, and that together now the two of you have, in addition to the +2 AC, 3/4 cover as well from ranged attacks, would appear to be double dipping. I'd argue that at best, you could either get the +2 AC to every attack, or the 3/4 cover bonus against ranged attacks coming from the front-facing direction (whichever one of the 4 grid directions your characters are both or all facing) but you can't have both. What are the chances that in the original post they lost their +2 AC bonus from the shield? Bet they didn't. So now they are trying to get +5 AC off of a +2 AC shield by a "flavor move" that has no codification in the rules. Nope, I wouldn't allow it.
We had the +2 to AC only work on melee attacks and the +5 to AC only work on ranged attacks (only from attacks from the front for melee attacks, too). So, it wasn't a +7 to AC against ranged attacks, just a +5.
What I might do, instead, for the Roman Legions, is give Roman soldiers some sort of special ability called "Shield Wall" that they could burn like an Action Surge, a certain # of times per battle. Or I might give it to my Strongholds and Followers legion units, something like "Shield Wall - ranged units have disadvantage on their Power tests against this unit unless it is currently Engaged with a melee unit."
But for PCs in a battle? Only way they get some kind of "Shield Wall" bonus is if they give up the+2 AC in general that the shield provides -- because the ability to deflect ranged attacks with the shield is already baked into the +2. That's what it's there for.
The PCs weren't using it, it was NPCs within an army. A power would work, too, but ours was simpler and we thought that it emulated the idea of a shield wall well. It worked and wasn't mechanically broken. YMMV, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Then don't be shocked and hurt when something bad happens to your char and the DM said "It is right there in the House Rules." You say "I did not read them, so they don't apply to me", will get you laughed out of a group.
I won't laugh someone out of the group, but I also won't change the ruling because they didn't read the house rules. Fortunately I don't have all that many, and most of my players read the house rules. It's a bit of a list now, but we started with, like, 3, and most of them have been added as we go. So it's not a big deal to read a paragraph every couple of months.
However, the house rules get enforced as written, whether the player knew about it or not. If they express surprise I will paste the link to the house rule page into chat and say "It's been in the house rules for months."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Your Shield Wall scenario is the mechanical mess I was speaking of that I wouldn't want any part of. Thematically, I can partly see where they wanted it, mechanically, as you indicate, one needs to consider a bunch of potential mechanics that may or may not interfere or come into play, etc etc. I had NO issue with your objections to that, because ALL the details you said were imposed and used seemed.....weird, or simply not quite right, to my mind. That was, in my eyes, on the wrong side of the line between the roles of cool and fool. That bit was not cool, and being upset (and baffled?) as to it happening makes sense. I was saying that your tone implied ALL rules of cool applications were the devil and I strongly disagree. Flexing a rule slightly can enhance the adventure, but tossing it entirely will more often than not crush the fun.
Any insults were intended to be towards a cycloptic view of anything, saying there is one, and only one way to do things that is right. D&D is far too vast with many rules far too vague to take such a stand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Your Shield Wall scenario is the mechanical mess I was speaking of that I wouldn't want any part of. Thematically, I can partly see where they wanted it, mechanically, as you indicate, one needs to consider a bunch of potential mechanics that may or may not interfere or come into play, etc etc. I had NO issue with your objections to that, because ALL the details you said were imposed and used seemed.....weird, or simply not quite right, to my mind. That was, in my eyes, on the wrong side of the line between the roles of cool and fool. That bit was not cool, and being upset (and baffled?) as to it happening makes sense. I was saying that your tone implied ALL rules of cool applications were the devil and I strongly disagree. Flexing a rule slightly can enhance the adventure, but tossing it entirely will more often than not crush the fun.
Any insults were intended to be towards a cycloptic view of anything, saying there is one, and only one way to do things that is right. D&D is far too vast with many rules far too vague to take such a stand.
Let's just say my experiences with Rule of Cool invariably result in a player wanting to do more with their char than it is capable of within the existing rules. This is right up there with "The only reason I like to roll 4d6 is because of the variability in starting stats".
You keep arguing your points over and over, to a group that doesn't necessarily agree with you. Seems obvious that you are not happy in the group you are in and just want validation. This is a game that is meant for enjoyment. if you are not enjoying it, walk away, find another game, do something you enjoy.
Your Shield Wall scenario is the mechanical mess I was speaking of that I wouldn't want any part of. Thematically, I can partly see where they wanted it, mechanically, as you indicate, one needs to consider a bunch of potential mechanics that may or may not interfere or come into play, etc etc. I had NO issue with your objections to that, because ALL the details you said were imposed and used seemed.....weird, or simply not quite right, to my mind. That was, in my eyes, on the wrong side of the line between the roles of cool and fool. That bit was not cool, and being upset (and baffled?) as to it happening makes sense. I was saying that your tone implied ALL rules of cool applications were the devil and I strongly disagree. Flexing a rule slightly can enhance the adventure, but tossing it entirely will more often than not crush the fun.
Any insults were intended to be towards a cycloptic view of anything, saying there is one, and only one way to do things that is right. D&D is far too vast with many rules far too vague to take such a stand.
Let's just say my experiences with Rule of Cool invariably result in a player wanting to do more with their char than it is capable of within the existing rules. This is right up there with "The only reason I like to roll 4d6 is because of the variability in starting stats".
At least for me, there are two reasons to roll 4d6 and neither of them are related to 18s, but that's off-topic. RoC is used because it makes the story better. It shouldn't be used for everything, but sometimes everyone just wants to see a character do something cool(Hence the name's use of the word).
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept within the rules of 5e. And after a few iterations of it failing, if played by RAW, that failure translates to a Halfling Rogue in-game saying to a Cleric" You know, your Shield Wall is a stupid idea."
As for your movement thing, you have lost me. You are going to have to provide an example.
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept within the rules of 5e. And after a few iterations of it failing, if played by RAW, that failure translates to a Halfling Rogue in-game saying to a Cleric" You know, your Shield Wall is a stupid idea."
As for your movement thing, you have lost me. You are going to have to provide an example.
We're approaching the enemy fortress at night. You have Darkvision and can tell when the guards' backs are turned, I don't so I can't from where we are. There's 50 ft killing ground to cross while they are not looking. If I run across on my own initiative I can cross that distance, but I can't be sure they're not looking. If I wait for you to tell me they're not looking I'll be sure, but then I won't be able to cross the distance in one turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept within the rules of 5e. And after a few iterations of it failing, if played by RAW, that failure translates to a Halfling Rogue in-game saying to a Cleric" You know, your Shield Wall is a stupid idea."
As for your movement thing, you have lost me. You are going to have to provide an example.
We're approaching the enemy fortress at night. You have Darkvision and can tell when the guards' backs are turned, I don't so I can't from where we are. There's 50 ft killing ground to cross while they are not looking. If I run across on my own initiative I can cross that distance, but I can't be sure they're not looking. If I wait for you to tell me they're not looking I'll be sure, but then I won't be able to cross the distance in one turn.
I am working with the assumption you have 30 feet movement, and would have used Dash to complete the 60 feet. Yeah, if you use "Go now" as a trigger, you are 100% correct by RAW, since you only have movement, or an action, with your Readied Action. Does it seem "dumb"? Yeah, I can concede that point. But I am not about to advocate for a House Rule that allows you to have Movement and an Action on your Readied Action.
No worries, my responses have been with my MAXIMUM VINCE FILTRATION goggles (tm, Midnightplat 2021) on, so I agree he presents his opposition needlessly antagonistically
I'm pretty sure Vince words things the way he does to get the discussion fired up... which you cannot deny he did (got it fired up, I mean).
A grandmaster in chess can create magic within the 40 or 50 rules of chess, limited by 64 squares. A "rule of cool" player, needs to have Knights that move 3 up and 2 over to compete with a grandmaster.
The funny thing about using chess as a metaphor for a game that allows no variation is that it requires you to ignore the numerous varations of the game there is. 3D chess is a thing, chess boxing is a thing, speed chess is a thing, playing against multiple opponents is a thing. Heck if I'm not mistaken there is even Klingon chess. And then of course there are al of the historical varations of the rules that has been around through the different iterations of the game.
And yes, someone will of coure say "but you don't mix different rules from different variants of chess!" Well, of course not (even though I can definitaly see Klingon chess boxing as a thing" but the point is, they're all playing chess. Different versions of it, yes. But all of the versions are still chess. No version is "superior" or "inferior", they're just different.
But the fact that some player even considered talking about it enrages me. That player is a bad player.
It enraged you huh? I mean murder enrages me, **** enrages me, child abuse enrages me, animal cruelty enrages me, but someone having the temerity to ask if they can use their foot to touch someone and cast cure wounds.... nope. I guess my priorities are all out of whack huh? The DM did nothing wrong, the declined to allow most of the things and did allow a 6 second burst of super heated magical fire to melt a bit of non magical ice. because, you know, fire does melt ice. You specified that it was just a microsecond of flame, and yet the round lasts for 6 seconds. Plenty enough to cause a bit of ice to become unsteady or make a guy standing on said ice nervous enough to think that he was going to fall and so jump down before he actually did fall. I have no issue with the DM calls here, just your reaction to them.
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept within the rules of 5e. And after a few iterations of it failing, if played by RAW, that failure translates to a Halfling Rogue in-game saying to a Cleric" You know, your Shield Wall is a stupid idea."
As for your movement thing, you have lost me. You are going to have to provide an example.
We're approaching the enemy fortress at night. You have Darkvision and can tell when the guards' backs are turned, I don't so I can't from where we are. There's 50 ft killing ground to cross while they are not looking. If I run across on my own initiative I can cross that distance, but I can't be sure they're not looking. If I wait for you to tell me they're not looking I'll be sure, but then I won't be able to cross the distance in one turn.
I am working with the assumption you have 30 feet movement, and would have used Dash to complete the 60 feet. Yeah, if you use "Go now" as a trigger, you are 100% correct by RAW, since you only have movement, or an action, with your Readied Action. Does it seem "dumb"? Yeah, I can concede that point. But I am not about to advocate for a House Rule that allows you to have Movement and an Action on your Readied Action.
I could certainly see myself allowing movement + Dash as a readied action, for instance.
Thing is also, if I go strictly by the RAW, you can't communicate as a free action out of turn:
"Other Activity on Your Turn Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move. You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."
In other words, within the confines of 5E, you can't ready an action to tap me on the shoulder as the sign to go for it and also move. It's one or the other. I can't imagine a DM ruling that strictly, but letter of the law them's the breaks.
RoC is used because it makes the story better. It shouldn't be used for everything, but sometimes everyone just wants to see a character do something cool
This is a great point.
"Rule of Cool" has been around a long time. The Champions designers didn't call it that, but they advised GMs to allow things like this -- when they made the story better. When the story called for it. Not every phase of combat. Not every time someone wanted to be OP. But when the player is having his character dive in front of a machine-gun burst to take the bullets for some innocent children, rather than enforcing a roll that might miss, you may simply allow it (or fudge the rolls) because (a) it is a heroic sacrifice, (b) it is narratively appropriate, and (c) it is fitting for the superhero genre, which the game is trying to emulate. It would be extremely disappointing, from a storytelling perspective, to have a superhero abort his next-phase action and dive in front of bullets, only to fail his dex roll and end up tripping himself. Unless you're running a comedy campaign, such a result is unsatisfying compared to letting him actually succeed. Here I agree with Peterson and McDonald (the writers of Champions 1e-4e)... the storytelling takes precedence over "RAW" or the die rolls.
But I think often this idea has gotten warped into players thinking they can use this idea every session, or worse every phase of combat (or round, in D&D) to do things the rules do not specify, just because they think at the moment it would be "cool" (which, further to Vince's point and echoing my own) is really code for "it's more powerful than I'm actually supposed to be." It's not OP for the hero to throw himself in the line of fire and maybe take enough damage to be in the hospital, to save innocent children. It *is* OP, in my opinion, for PCs to get a +5 AC (3/4 cover) as a "bonus action" with their shields, while still maintaining the +2 AC from all other attacks, from all other directions, that the rules already gave you with that shield. It's now a "+2 shield, +7 vs. missiles" rather than a regular shield. I find this unacceptable because, again, it is double-dipping in an attempt to make the shield more powerful than the rules have balanced it to be. If the developers wanted shields to be able to be +7 if you happen to be standing next to other people with shields, they would have said so in the rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why not? Why can't D&D shields be like the shields of the Roman Legion? There's no description of what the 5e shield looks like in the PHB, and is assumed to represent bucklers, lantern shields, tower shields, and all other varieties of real world shields. Now, if your meaning is that they don't automatically assume those forms and unless it was planned beforehand, your party wouldn't be able to do it on the fly, I agree with that. My group spent time and money designing these shields and distributing them amongst our army so they could use shield walls.
They don't destroy the basic rules of 5e, though. It is completely logical that holding up a shield similarly shaped to those of the Roman Legion in a shield wall formation would grant 3/4ths cover to those behind the shield wall. This is part of the 5e rules. The bonus action was added by my DM because a) he didn't want it to be free, and b) it doesn't make sense to spend your whole action readying it to wait for the group to move.
You are blinded by hatred, Vince. You hate anything that so much as smells as being outside of the PHB/DMG, and will make up any reason to justify your hatred. Stop. There's no need for it and it's unhealthy.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think we agree on general principles.
Readied Actions is likely one of the more abused/ misunderstood rules within the game. But at the same time, one Reaction/turn for a player is very straightforward. If this had happened:
DM's NPC N moves forward, does whatever, and waits for the rest of the group.
Player A runs up to end movement beside N, doing whatever during or after movement, but ends his turn beside N.
Player C has the same freedom of action as player A, but also ends his turn beside A and N;
That would have been perfectly within RAW's Action Economy, while preserving the same "theme" of this shield wall (their term, not mine).
If a group, or more precisely, a DM, wants to alter the Readied Action to some House Rule, I can visualize it, as long as it is reasonable. I am well aware what is reasonable to me is far far different to some player who hates rules of any kind. But such House Rules MUST be laid out ahead of time, as it is such a key element to the game. And bringing this around again, if a DM told me he had a House Rule that Dim Light causes Attacks at Disadvantage, I would say "what happens with Attacks in Darkness?"
But this is all moot. The DM laid out zero House Rules, and apparently feels no need to, since they just get in the way of him being pleasantly surprised by the players.
Imagine his "pleasant surprise" when my Halfling Rogue pulls out a Whip (took one level of Fighter for that express purpose), and then uses the Skirmisher Feature, then an Opportunity Attack at 10 feet, and finally, Uncanny Dodge, all in the same turn, because it is "cool".
Erm... I what way preserves this the theme of a shield wall? "Ending your turn adjacent to another PC" equals shield wall?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e. And mechanically, if done by RAW, serves no purpose. So you have got me on this one. I guess the only real answer is "unless players and a DM want to throw out RAW and create something out of the rule of cool", there is no such thing as a shield wall.
But they can still perform actions? Does this include casting spells with Somatic components? That would seem to violate the principle of the shield wall, which is that everyone is static and standing elbow to elbow and holding the shields up in perfect alignment. The second someone moves the shield to cast Fireball or something, using a bunch of gesticulations for the somatic gesture, that breaks the wall -- or it should.
Heck I even have a Roman campaign and I would probably not allow my players to create a shield wall, as doing so violates too many of the principles of the rules as written. For example, your shield already gives you +2 AC. To rule that if you stand next to someone else whose shield also grants him +2 AC, and that together now the two of you have, in addition to the +2 AC, 3/4 cover as well from ranged attacks, would appear to be double dipping. I'd argue that at best, you could either get the +2 AC to every attack, or the 3/4 cover bonus against ranged attacks coming from the front-facing direction (whichever one of the 4 grid directions your characters are both or all facing) but you can't have both. What are the chances that in the original post they lost their +2 AC bonus from the shield? Bet they didn't. So now they are trying to get +5 AC off of a +2 AC shield by a "flavor move" that has no codification in the rules. Nope, I wouldn't allow it.
What I might do, instead, for the Roman Legions, is give Roman soldiers some sort of special ability called "Shield Wall" that they could burn like an Action Surge, a certain # of times per battle. Or I might give it to my Strongholds and Followers legion units, something like "Shield Wall - ranged units have disadvantage on their Power tests against this unit unless it is currently Engaged with a melee unit."
But for PCs in a battle? Only way they get some kind of "Shield Wall" bonus is if they give up the+2 AC in general that the shield provides -- because the ability to deflect ranged attacks with the shield is already baked into the +2. That's what it's there for.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Then don't be shocked and hurt when something bad happens to your char and the DM said "It is right there in the House Rules." You say "I did not read them, so they don't apply to me", will get you laughed out of a group.
Yes, they can perform actions. When the Romans were using a shield wall they would use swords/spears to attack those in front of them. No one in the shield was were spellcasters, but if they were, they would have to be clerics/paladins to perform somatic components for spells and have their shield be a spellcasting focus in order to do so.
We had the +2 to AC only work on melee attacks and the +5 to AC only work on ranged attacks (only from attacks from the front for melee attacks, too). So, it wasn't a +7 to AC against ranged attacks, just a +5.
The PCs weren't using it, it was NPCs within an army. A power would work, too, but ours was simpler and we thought that it emulated the idea of a shield wall well. It worked and wasn't mechanically broken. YMMV, though.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I won't laugh someone out of the group, but I also won't change the ruling because they didn't read the house rules. Fortunately I don't have all that many, and most of my players read the house rules. It's a bit of a list now, but we started with, like, 3, and most of them have been added as we go. So it's not a big deal to read a paragraph every couple of months.
However, the house rules get enforced as written, whether the player knew about it or not. If they express surprise I will paste the link to the house rule page into chat and say "It's been in the house rules for months."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Your Shield Wall scenario is the mechanical mess I was speaking of that I wouldn't want any part of. Thematically, I can partly see where they wanted it, mechanically, as you indicate, one needs to consider a bunch of potential mechanics that may or may not interfere or come into play, etc etc. I had NO issue with your objections to that, because ALL the details you said were imposed and used seemed.....weird, or simply not quite right, to my mind. That was, in my eyes, on the wrong side of the line between the roles of cool and fool. That bit was not cool, and being upset (and baffled?) as to it happening makes sense. I was saying that your tone implied ALL rules of cool applications were the devil and I strongly disagree. Flexing a rule slightly can enhance the adventure, but tossing it entirely will more often than not crush the fun.
Any insults were intended to be towards a cycloptic view of anything, saying there is one, and only one way to do things that is right. D&D is far too vast with many rules far too vague to take such a stand.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Let's just say my experiences with Rule of Cool invariably result in a player wanting to do more with their char than it is capable of within the existing rules. This is right up there with "The only reason I like to roll 4d6 is because of the variability in starting stats".
You keep arguing your points over and over, to a group that doesn't necessarily agree with you. Seems obvious that you are not happy in the group you are in and just want validation. This is a game that is meant for enjoyment. if you are not enjoying it, walk away, find another game, do something you enjoy.
At least for me, there are two reasons to roll 4d6 and neither of them are related to 18s, but that's off-topic. RoC is used because it makes the story better. It shouldn't be used for everything, but sometimes everyone just wants to see a character do something cool(Hence the name's use of the word).
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
A shield wall is an idiotic concept within the rules of 5e. And after a few iterations of it failing, if played by RAW, that failure translates to a Halfling Rogue in-game saying to a Cleric" You know, your Shield Wall is a stupid idea."
As for your movement thing, you have lost me. You are going to have to provide an example.
We're approaching the enemy fortress at night. You have Darkvision and can tell when the guards' backs are turned, I don't so I can't from where we are. There's 50 ft killing ground to cross while they are not looking. If I run across on my own initiative I can cross that distance, but I can't be sure they're not looking. If I wait for you to tell me they're not looking I'll be sure, but then I won't be able to cross the distance in one turn.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I am working with the assumption you have 30 feet movement, and would have used Dash to complete the 60 feet. Yeah, if you use "Go now" as a trigger, you are 100% correct by RAW, since you only have movement, or an action, with your Readied Action. Does it seem "dumb"? Yeah, I can concede that point. But I am not about to advocate for a House Rule that allows you to have Movement and an Action on your Readied Action.
The funny thing about using chess as a metaphor for a game that allows no variation is that it requires you to ignore the numerous varations of the game there is. 3D chess is a thing, chess boxing is a thing, speed chess is a thing, playing against multiple opponents is a thing. Heck if I'm not mistaken there is even Klingon chess. And then of course there are al of the historical varations of the rules that has been around through the different iterations of the game.
And yes, someone will of coure say "but you don't mix different rules from different variants of chess!" Well, of course not (even though I can definitaly see Klingon chess boxing as a thing" but the point is, they're all playing chess. Different versions of it, yes. But all of the versions are still chess. No version is "superior" or "inferior", they're just different.
It enraged you huh? I mean murder enrages me, **** enrages me, child abuse enrages me, animal cruelty enrages me, but someone having the temerity to ask if they can use their foot to touch someone and cast cure wounds.... nope. I guess my priorities are all out of whack huh? The DM did nothing wrong, the declined to allow most of the things and did allow a 6 second burst of super heated magical fire to melt a bit of non magical ice. because, you know, fire does melt ice. You specified that it was just a microsecond of flame, and yet the round lasts for 6 seconds. Plenty enough to cause a bit of ice to become unsteady or make a guy standing on said ice nervous enough to think that he was going to fall and so jump down before he actually did fall. I have no issue with the DM calls here, just your reaction to them.
I could certainly see myself allowing movement + Dash as a readied action, for instance.
Thing is also, if I go strictly by the RAW, you can't communicate as a free action out of turn:
"Other Activity on Your Turn
Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."
In other words, within the confines of 5E, you can't ready an action to tap me on the shoulder as the sign to go for it and also move. It's one or the other. I can't imagine a DM ruling that strictly, but letter of the law them's the breaks.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is a great point.
"Rule of Cool" has been around a long time. The Champions designers didn't call it that, but they advised GMs to allow things like this -- when they made the story better. When the story called for it. Not every phase of combat. Not every time someone wanted to be OP. But when the player is having his character dive in front of a machine-gun burst to take the bullets for some innocent children, rather than enforcing a roll that might miss, you may simply allow it (or fudge the rolls) because (a) it is a heroic sacrifice, (b) it is narratively appropriate, and (c) it is fitting for the superhero genre, which the game is trying to emulate. It would be extremely disappointing, from a storytelling perspective, to have a superhero abort his next-phase action and dive in front of bullets, only to fail his dex roll and end up tripping himself. Unless you're running a comedy campaign, such a result is unsatisfying compared to letting him actually succeed. Here I agree with Peterson and McDonald (the writers of Champions 1e-4e)... the storytelling takes precedence over "RAW" or the die rolls.
But I think often this idea has gotten warped into players thinking they can use this idea every session, or worse every phase of combat (or round, in D&D) to do things the rules do not specify, just because they think at the moment it would be "cool" (which, further to Vince's point and echoing my own) is really code for "it's more powerful than I'm actually supposed to be." It's not OP for the hero to throw himself in the line of fire and maybe take enough damage to be in the hospital, to save innocent children. It *is* OP, in my opinion, for PCs to get a +5 AC (3/4 cover) as a "bonus action" with their shields, while still maintaining the +2 AC from all other attacks, from all other directions, that the rules already gave you with that shield. It's now a "+2 shield, +7 vs. missiles" rather than a regular shield. I find this unacceptable because, again, it is double-dipping in an attempt to make the shield more powerful than the rules have balanced it to be. If the developers wanted shields to be able to be +7 if you happen to be standing next to other people with shields, they would have said so in the rules.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.