An optional rule that I've never heard of any tables not using.
Maybe you'd be surprised. I GM 4 games, am playing in 4 games and none of them have flanking.
What are the official rules for flanking? Which book is it in? I hear different things so I want to know the source.
It is in the DMG under "Using Miniatures" after the subsection "Cover".
Optional Rule: Flanking
If you regularly use miniatures, flanking gives combatants a simple way to gain advantage on attack rolls against a common enemy.
A creature can’t flank an enemy that it can’t see. A creature also can’t flank while it is incapacitated. A Large or larger creature is flanking as long as at least one square or hex of its space qualifies for flanking.
I stand corrected, in the case that an ally is within 5', dodge would not negate sneak. It does however negate sneak if no ally within 5', or if enemy is using one of the sneak attack clone abilities [such as having two abilities, 1 being pack tactics (where an ally within 5' gives advantage) and another ability that says if they have advantage they get extra damage). Because that doesn't rely on the sneak attack rules, and doesn't actually count as a sneak attack (monsters and npcs that don't have rogue levels, but get extra damage when they have advantage).] In that case they extra damage is coming entirely from having advantage.
If your character dances in front of the dragon and informs it that it's father was a hamster and its mother smelt of elderberries, then it slinks past to attack someone else, that is a high point of the night.
Your non-attacking character can justify their lack of contribution to the fight however they want, but I wouldn't count on anyone else going along with it
A large part of this thread has been people expecting monsters and NPCs to act exactly the way they need them to in order to make the scenario they've concocted in their head make sense
I think you'll find it is actually DMs talking about things they do to empower the creativity and RP of their own players at their table.
If your character dances in front of the dragon and informs it that it's father was a hamster and its mother smelt of elderberries, then it slinks past to attack someone else, that is a high point of the night.
Your non-attacking character can justify their lack of contribution to the fight however they want, but I wouldn't count on anyone else going along with it
A large part of this thread has been people expecting monsters and NPCs to act exactly the way they need them to in order to make the scenario they've concocted in their head make sense
I think you'll find it is actually DMs talking about things they do to empower the creativity and RP of their own players at their table.
Yup, very creative to build a melee character who doesn't actually attack and just calls enemies cowards when they get ignored
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think you'll find it is actually DMs talking about things they do to empower the creativity and RP of their own players at their table.
There's no creativity or RP to dodging. There can be some to witty banter, but engaging in witty banter isn't the Dodge action, it's using your action to make a Charisma check.
If your character dances in front of the dragon and informs it that it's father was a hamster and its mother smelt of elderberries, then it slinks past to attack someone else, that is a high point of the night.
Your non-attacking character can justify their lack of contribution to the fight however they want, but I wouldn't count on anyone else going along with it
A large part of this thread has been people expecting monsters and NPCs to act exactly the way they need them to in order to make the scenario they've concocted in their head make sense
I think you'll find it is actually DMs talking about things they do to empower the creativity and RP of their own players at their table.
Yup, very creative to build a melee character who doesn't actually attack and just calls enemies cowards when they get ignored
Why are you insisting on this strawman? That is not what anyone here is talking about except you.
I think you'll find it is actually DMs talking about things they do to empower the creativity and RP of their own players at their table.
There's no creativity or RP to dodging. There can be some to witty banter, but engaging in witty banter isn't the Dodge action, it's using your action to make a Charisma check
Has everyone here got the memory of a goldfish? I've explained twice or three times what I mean but now we are back at this dismissive "No can't do that because I invented this new rule that means you can't do that." The rules explicitly say you can talk a few sentences in combat without using an action. You can use those sentences for whatever you like, including witty banter, cutting insults, threats, distractions, deceptions. You don't need an action to point out an invisible / hidden enemy, you don't need an action to ask your party member for help, you don't need an action to exclaim you've found the MacGuffin, why would you need an action to blow a raspberry at the enemy?
Fine. If you want to make your game absolutely miserable where taking the Attack action is the only thing martials are allowed to do ever in any situation, (and Cast Spell is the only action a spellcaster is allowed to do ever) because you choose to make it so, then go do that. But then you have no right to complain that martials are boring and have no choices in combat, because that is only the case because you have chosen to make it so. I pity your players.
If your character dances in front of the dragon and informs it that it's father was a hamster and its mother smelt of elderberries, then it slinks past to attack someone else, that is a high point of the night.
Your non-attacking character can justify their lack of contribution to the fight however they want, but I wouldn't count on anyone else going along with it
A large part of this thread has been people expecting monsters and NPCs to act exactly the way they need them to in order to make the scenario they've concocted in their head make sense
I think you'll find it is actually DMs talking about things they do to empower the creativity and RP of their own players at their table.
Yup, very creative to build a melee character who doesn't actually attack and just calls enemies cowards when they get ignored
Why are you insisting on this strawman? That is not what anyone here is talking about except you.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Has everyone here got the memory of a goldfish? I've explained twice or three times what I mean but now we are back at this dismissive "No can't do that because I invented this new rule that means you can't do that." The rules explicitly say you can talk a few sentences in combat without using an action.
Yes, but you're not trying to communicate, you're trying to influence.
Fine. If you want to make your game absolutely miserable where taking the Attack action is the only thing martials are allowed to do ever in any situation, (and Cast Spell is the only action a spellcaster is allowed to do ever) because you choose to make it so, then go do that. But then you have no right to complain that martials are boring and have no choices in combat, because that is only the case because you have chosen to make it so. I pity your players.
You absolutely have the ability to take actions other than attack. That action is, however,
IMPROVISING AN ACTION
Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in the Using Ability Scores section for inspiration as you improvise.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
While taunting is not specifically mentioned here, it's clearly in the same category of actions as intimidating enemies or calling for a parley.
Maybe you should try it with your players and see what happens. Just for curiosity sake.
Give it a fair shake, see if dialog does anything to them and don't be silly and TELL them the creature is dodging, just tell them their attack is at disadvantage.
Actually, nevermind. Considering how some of you have been answering, your monsters don't talk and all of your encounters are combat only, boring whack a moles.
I still can't believe nobody talks in your games during combat. "We surrender!" "Please don't kill us!" no rules for that, kill them all. Oh wait, the players said that? Make a Persuasion check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I still can't believe nobody talks in your games during combat. "We surrender!" "Please don't kill us!" no rules for that, kill them all. Oh wait, the players said that? Make a Persuasion check.
If you want to be particularly persuasive, you'll need to make a check. If you don't care about being persuasive, you don't need to make a check or take an action. You can certainly yell "Come at me!" and take the dodge action... but you have no grounds for complaining if you get ignored.
Maybe you should try it with your players and see what happens. Just for curiosity sake.
Try what, exactly? Be specific. Spell out exactly what you think it is you think people aren't letting their players do
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I would note that many DMs do in fact allow combining an influence roll with another appropriate action (the most common one I see is a command to surrender combined with a ready) and I wouldn't say it's a bad house rule... just that is is, in fact, a house rule. Also, it's not really about dodge being valuable, it's about influence rolls being valuable.
Saying "We surrender!" to the hungry pack of wolves is probably going to be an Animal Handling check with a crazy high DC (or the DM will just say they are not phased by your pleading).
Winner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Depends on the player. If the DM taunts the player, and the player reacts, then yes it will work. I'd say it's MORE likely to work because players are more emotionally invested in their PCs. At the end of the day, the player is going to make the choice on what to do if the DM taunts them. But if the player chooses to not take the bait, that's pretty much all there is to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Nobody is saying that this will never work ever. But using this as a strategy or tactic is probably not going to do anything other than put your DM in a tough spot on what to do. Because either way (unless they flip a coin), they are going to be meta-gaming the creature.
How is a monster in character responding to something a player does in character metagaming? Is it metagaming for an NPC to respond to your PCs talking to them? Monsters should have personalities, goals, needs, faults, and flaws. Goading an enemy that is prideful and narcissistic should work, but goading one that is careful and calculating shouldn't. Intimidating a predator looking for a quick & easy meal should work, but intimidating a Chimera protecting it's nest shouldn't work. Asking for surrender of a group of bandits you ambushed in their camp in the middle of the night while they are unprepared should work, asking for surrender of a rampaging bull shouldn't. Telling an elemental trapped on the wrong plane that you can banish it back home if it let's you should work, saying the same thing to a devil sent to the material plane to do a job shouldn't. And honestly, people are way too fixated on rolling, lots of these situations I wouldn't even ask for a roll.
but you have no grounds for complaining if you get ignored.
Improvised activities have no rules attached to them other than "The DM decides what to do." So regardless, if you do anything that isn't explicitly spelled out in the rules you have no grounds to argue with the DM. But more than that the #1 rule of D&D is that if the DM decides an explicitly written rule is preventing fun at their table then they should ignore it or change it. So the players never have ground to argue with the DM. If you as a player are arguing with your DM you should cut it out, your being a bad player. If your players are arguing with you then you should talk to them to tell them to cut it out because they are being bad players.
And again, a "strategy" or "tactic" is an approach to take in a specific situation to achieve a specific goal. It isn't a universally useful, universally effective set of actions that you expect to be able to use over and over and over in every single combat, or every single situation and have it work. Strategy is using the knowledge you have about the enemy, and the knowledge you have about the terrain, and the knowledge you have about the situation, and the knowledge you have about the resources available to you and putting those pieces together into a plan to achieve your goal. The Romans didn't use a shield phalanx in every single battle, medieval knights didn't use a cavalry charge in every single battle, welsh longbowmen didn't stand in a line amongst stakes in every single battle.
Dodging and taunting are strategies, they aren't builds. There are some situations where they work great, other times where they don't.
If you want a character that just does the same thing over and over and optimizes doing that thing, that is a build. It's not strategy. And you should expect your DM to occasionally create combats where it just doesn't work.
And again, a "strategy" or "tactic" is an approach to take in a specific situation to achieve a specific goal. It isn't a universally useful, universally effective set of actions
There's not a lot of point to discussion of one-off tactics; an abstract tactic discussion should cover a tactic that's sufficiently broadly applicable that people are likely to actually encounter it. The reality is that (a) most characters aren't all that good at taunting, and (b) if the DM is allowing taunt as part of another action, "taunt and attack" will usually be a better choice than "taunt and dodge".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are two ways to interpret the rules on advantage and disadvantage, and both of them result in sneak attack working. The two are
Now, sneak attack has two ways in which it can apply
It is in the DMG under "Using Miniatures" after the subsection "Cover".
Did a bunch more digging, and found this...
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/586408778829930496
I stand corrected, in the case that an ally is within 5', dodge would not negate sneak. It does however negate sneak if no ally within 5', or if enemy is using one of the sneak attack clone abilities [such as having two abilities, 1 being pack tactics (where an ally within 5' gives advantage) and another ability that says if they have advantage they get extra damage). Because that doesn't rely on the sneak attack rules, and doesn't actually count as a sneak attack (monsters and npcs that don't have rogue levels, but get extra damage when they have advantage).] In that case they extra damage is coming entirely from having advantage.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I think you'll find it is actually DMs talking about things they do to empower the creativity and RP of their own players at their table.
Yup, very creative to build a melee character who doesn't actually attack and just calls enemies cowards when they get ignored
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's no creativity or RP to dodging. There can be some to witty banter, but engaging in witty banter isn't the Dodge action, it's using your action to make a Charisma check.
Why are you insisting on this strawman? That is not what anyone here is talking about except you.
Has everyone here got the memory of a goldfish? I've explained twice or three times what I mean but now we are back at this dismissive "No can't do that because I invented this new rule that means you can't do that." The rules explicitly say you can talk a few sentences in combat without using an action. You can use those sentences for whatever you like, including witty banter, cutting insults, threats, distractions, deceptions. You don't need an action to point out an invisible / hidden enemy, you don't need an action to ask your party member for help, you don't need an action to exclaim you've found the MacGuffin, why would you need an action to blow a raspberry at the enemy?
Fine. If you want to make your game absolutely miserable where taking the Attack action is the only thing martials are allowed to do ever in any situation, (and Cast Spell is the only action a spellcaster is allowed to do ever) because you choose to make it so, then go do that. But then you have no right to complain that martials are boring and have no choices in combat, because that is only the case because you have chosen to make it so. I pity your players.
It's literally in the post I quoted, my dude
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, but you're not trying to communicate, you're trying to influence.
You absolutely have the ability to take actions other than attack. That action is, however,
While taunting is not specifically mentioned here, it's clearly in the same category of actions as intimidating enemies or calling for a parley.
Maybe you should try it with your players and see what happens. Just for curiosity sake.
Give it a fair shake, see if dialog does anything to them and don't be silly and TELL them the creature is dodging, just tell them their attack is at disadvantage.
Actually, nevermind. Considering how some of you have been answering, your monsters don't talk and all of your encounters are combat only, boring whack a moles.
I still can't believe nobody talks in your games during combat. "We surrender!" "Please don't kill us!" no rules for that, kill them all. Oh wait, the players said that? Make a Persuasion check.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
If you want to be particularly persuasive, you'll need to make a check. If you don't care about being persuasive, you don't need to make a check or take an action. You can certainly yell "Come at me!" and take the dodge action... but you have no grounds for complaining if you get ignored.
Try what, exactly? Be specific. Spell out exactly what you think it is you think people aren't letting their players do
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I would note that many DMs do in fact allow combining an influence roll with another appropriate action (the most common one I see is a command to surrender combined with a ready) and I wouldn't say it's a bad house rule... just that is is, in fact, a house rule. Also, it's not really about dodge being valuable, it's about influence rolls being valuable.
Apparently a PC taunting a monster will never work. But will a monster taunting a PC work? I'm betting it will since one of you reported my post.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Winner.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Depends on the player. If the DM taunts the player, and the player reacts, then yes it will work. I'd say it's MORE likely to work because players are more emotionally invested in their PCs. At the end of the day, the player is going to make the choice on what to do if the DM taunts them. But if the player chooses to not take the bait, that's pretty much all there is to it.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
How is a monster in character responding to something a player does in character metagaming? Is it metagaming for an NPC to respond to your PCs talking to them? Monsters should have personalities, goals, needs, faults, and flaws. Goading an enemy that is prideful and narcissistic should work, but goading one that is careful and calculating shouldn't. Intimidating a predator looking for a quick & easy meal should work, but intimidating a Chimera protecting it's nest shouldn't work. Asking for surrender of a group of bandits you ambushed in their camp in the middle of the night while they are unprepared should work, asking for surrender of a rampaging bull shouldn't. Telling an elemental trapped on the wrong plane that you can banish it back home if it let's you should work, saying the same thing to a devil sent to the material plane to do a job shouldn't. And honestly, people are way too fixated on rolling, lots of these situations I wouldn't even ask for a roll.
Improvised activities have no rules attached to them other than "The DM decides what to do." So regardless, if you do anything that isn't explicitly spelled out in the rules you have no grounds to argue with the DM. But more than that the #1 rule of D&D is that if the DM decides an explicitly written rule is preventing fun at their table then they should ignore it or change it. So the players never have ground to argue with the DM. If you as a player are arguing with your DM you should cut it out, your being a bad player. If your players are arguing with you then you should talk to them to tell them to cut it out because they are being bad players.
And again, a "strategy" or "tactic" is an approach to take in a specific situation to achieve a specific goal. It isn't a universally useful, universally effective set of actions that you expect to be able to use over and over and over in every single combat, or every single situation and have it work. Strategy is using the knowledge you have about the enemy, and the knowledge you have about the terrain, and the knowledge you have about the situation, and the knowledge you have about the resources available to you and putting those pieces together into a plan to achieve your goal. The Romans didn't use a shield phalanx in every single battle, medieval knights didn't use a cavalry charge in every single battle, welsh longbowmen didn't stand in a line amongst stakes in every single battle.
Dodging and taunting are strategies, they aren't builds. There are some situations where they work great, other times where they don't.
If you want a character that just does the same thing over and over and optimizes doing that thing, that is a build. It's not strategy. And you should expect your DM to occasionally create combats where it just doesn't work.
There's not a lot of point to discussion of one-off tactics; an abstract tactic discussion should cover a tactic that's sufficiently broadly applicable that people are likely to actually encounter it. The reality is that (a) most characters aren't all that good at taunting, and (b) if the DM is allowing taunt as part of another action, "taunt and attack" will usually be a better choice than "taunt and dodge".