| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1FrogReaverOct 17, 2014 10:59:24 | Why do OA's not scale with multiple attacks? It later when I'm making 2-4 attacks why do I only make 1 attack on a reaction. It seems to greatly devalue OA's. Maybe that was the point. Any thoughts? |
| #2IllithidbixOct 17, 2014 11:15:25 | It's to cut down on lots and lots of rolling and because they want consequences for moving away but... not too harsh ones.
Also TMK, no earlier edition of D&D allowed multiple attacks on Opperunity Attacks (or their equivilent) |
| (Reply to #2)FrogReaver |
|
| #4TimboramaOct 17, 2014 11:46:29 |
|
| #5KalaniOct 17, 2014 11:53:36 | Actually - reducing the number of rolls was a stated design goal. Early playtests had characters making 1 attack/turn regardless of level, with higher level characters dealing more damage with their attack.
It scaled from 1x weapon damage to 5x weapon damage at 20th level, and was a horrible system. Like most playtesters, I was extremely thankful when they introduced the Extra Attacks mechanic to replace it.
With that being said, this issue has more to do with action ecconomy than it does with dice rolls. The Dev's wanted to keep action ecconomy reasonable, which is why they limited characters to 1 Action, 1 bonus Action, and 1 reaction/turn. While some characters can take multiple actions/turn (eg. Fighter, Action Surge) and some actions have multiple sub-actions (Attack action + Extra Attacks), the basic formula remains true.
Even monsters and NPCs are limited by these rules. I personally am grateful that the Dev's introduced the Lair Action and Legendary Action mechanics to the game, rather than grant legendary critters additional bonus actions or reactions.
I for one sincerely hope the Dev's never introduce mechanics which allow PCs to gain additional bonus actions or reactions, as someone would inevitably discover an abusive use for such, which may break the game. |
| #6melloredOct 17, 2014 12:04:16 | Sneak attack scales. Smites scale. Warcaster can scales. Ranger's beast scale, a little. |
| #7SmashpunkOct 17, 2014 12:41:00 |
|
| (Reply to #7)FrogReaver |
|
| #9rattousaiOct 17, 2014 15:12:32 | My two cents would be this: Extra attacks, etc, are proactive manuevers--you're actively going after a target. I see Opportunity Attacks as a reflexive response. Something moves, and you parry/stab with your weapon out of habit, but it's not a full "attack," it's--like the current rules--a reaction. I think it's fair just because you can only do so much "in a round." I can attack an intended target and kind of slash away at something moving past me, but I can't be in an intense melee with someone and slash at EVERYTHING that goes by, not without losing focus on my actual target.
I think, from a cinematic perspective (and your mileage may vary and that's fine), it creates a bit more of a dynamic combat, because in the past I think so many of my melee fighters didn't want to provoke AOs, so people rarely moved around the area, instead sticking to little one-on-one fights, etc.
Just my thoughts, but I understand why it can seem frustrating. (One could imaginably create a Feat, like a samurai "zanshin" concept, where you're always alert, perhaps at a decrease to some offensive skill for balance). |
| #10melloredOct 17, 2014 16:19:41 | oh, and Clerics get better OAs as well. But yes, the fighter is left out. |
| (Reply to #10)FrogReaver |
|
| #12StrillOct 17, 2014 18:15:04 |
|
| #13TimboramaOct 17, 2014 18:20:19 | Fighters get the options for more feats/ABIs, giving them more to do with their OA with Sentinel/Polearm Master, or inherent damage boosting abilities/feats. So there's that.
But also Battlemasters can use manuevers and Champions get another chance to crit. Heck, Eldritch Knights can buff themselves!
Edit: Ninja'd by Strill! |
| #14IllithidbixOct 17, 2014 18:37:26 |
|
| (Reply to #13)FrogReaver |
|
| #16StrillOct 17, 2014 20:31:18 |
|
| (Reply to #16)FrogReaver |
|
| #18PsikerlordOct 18, 2014 1:45:00 |
Yeah they should prolly scale. I believe there is an kption in dmg to increase dmg rather than multiple attacks - like 13A - maybe use that option for OA's, if not normal attacks? |
| #19StrillOct 18, 2014 2:15:25 |
|
| (Reply to #19)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #19)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #18)FrogReaver |
|
| #23ZardnaarOct 18, 2014 3:04:13 |
|
| #24SilentSinOct 18, 2014 3:45:29 | OAs do scale as you get higher stats, more features, feats, magic weapons, and so on.
OAs don't get multiple attacks because that would be dumb. Hey, I know you wanted to run past me, but please slow down a bit so I can swing my great axe at you 4 times. |
| #25TimmeeOct 18, 2014 5:54:48 | Back in the day, there was a feat called Combat Reflexes that let folks have a number of OAs equal to their Dexterity mod. Don't see a reason why that can't be a thing again if someone wanted to go that route.
Combat Reflexes
Or something like that. All the ingredients are there. Somebody do something with it. |
| #26melloredOct 18, 2014 10:45:38 |
|
| #27ChakravantOct 18, 2014 10:45:47 | Warlock + EB + Warcaster Feat certainly seems to have a scaling opportunity attack that provides multiple attacks. If that is dumb, what does that say about 5E? |
| (Reply to #23)FrogReaver | Great Weapon fighting -5/+10 is a poor choice to use on an OA (especially considering everyone has said to get sentinel).... So we are back at 7-17
But the real kicker is if you really want to talk about the -5/+10 effect you need to talk DPR instead of average damage. And considering we are talking about that in relation to a fighter then not much a chance to get advantage or +hit... so we are looking at the DPR with and without the -5/+10 effect to be close to the same...
Of course anything to win an argument right?
|
| (Reply to #24)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #29)SilentSin |
|
| (Reply to #30)FrogReaver |
|
| #32StrillOct 18, 2014 16:54:55 |
|
| (Reply to #32)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #32)FrogReaver |
|
| #35StrillOct 18, 2014 16:56:27 |
|
| #36FrogReaverOct 18, 2014 16:59:53 | Yall do understand that an OA done by a lvl 1 character in a book guidelines CR and EXP budget for a group of lvl 1 characters is Comparatively 2-4 times as strong as am OA done by a lvl 20 character using book guidelines CR and EXP budget.
I've tried to highlight this with the fighter because he's closetst to 4x as strong OA at lvl 1 as his is at lvl 20. You'll can comprehend this concept right? |
| #37MechaPilotOct 18, 2014 17:01:57 |
|
| (Reply to #37)FrogReaver |
|
| #39StrillOct 18, 2014 17:23:32 |
|
| #40MechaPilotOct 18, 2014 17:24:01 |
|
| (Reply to #39)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #40)FrogReaver |
|
| #43ClutchboneOct 18, 2014 21:55:35 | Is it really a big deal if some classes are better at OAs than others? Fighters as a whole are a solid class regardless. Besides, I wouldn't say that getting hit with ~12 damage, probably plus magic weapon, feat, spell, maneuver, and/or expanded crit range is exactly crappy for a OA. Maybe its not the best, but there's a lot of room to work there to make it hurt. |
| #44GladiusLegisOct 18, 2014 22:31:16 | It's not a big deal. Fighters have the most on-turn damage potential of the melee classes. A comparatively weak OA compared to, say, a Paladin, balances that out. |
| (Reply to #44)FrogReaver |
|
| #46FrogReaverOct 18, 2014 23:23:19 | So the basic community agreement is that a fighter's OA is okay not being a detterent to an "at level" creature from moving away from him after level 11? |
| (Reply to #46)Xeviat-DM |
|
| (Reply to #46)Clutchbone |
|
| (Reply to #48)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #49)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| (Reply to #50)FrogReaver |
|
| #522ChlorobutanalOct 20, 2014 0:01:39 | My mistake, please treat my phrasing of "OA"s for Sentinel as "reaction attacks" - I don't think it changes much though.
The core principle here is that enemies are probably not going to target a character other than the one with "Sentinel" if given a choice.
I assume you probably want a Fighter to attract more hits than a Rogue, because of generally higher HP and AC. If the Fighter has Sentinel, it becomes more difficult to avoid targeting the Fighter (which, given the name and features of the feat, seems to be the primary use-case for the feat, despite those advocating it as a mere DPS-boost).
If you want to play a "tank Rogue", then yes - a Rogue may find good use in the Sentinel feat. However, note that it is the role of "defender" or "tank" that dicates the necessity of Sentinel, not the class. A "striker" Rogue with Sentinel will probably not live long enough (or spend enough time conscious at any rate) to benefit greatly from all those reaction attacks or OAs.
Now, a Paladin "tank"/"defender" with Sentinel will hit harder through reaction attacks than a Fighter, but that seems to be perfectly in-line with the Paladin's strong suits: single-target combat (one reaction per round) and high defenses (d10 Hit Dice, Heavy Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, Defensive and Protection Styles). Even in this situation, where a Paladin gets to add (Improved) Divine Smite to a reaction attack, the Fighter still has some ways to augment his or her reaction attacks, as has been previously noted.
Example: Dragon is in melee with both (striker) Rogue and (defense-oriented) Fighter
Sentinel on a Rogue Dragon attacks Rogue, no reaction attack triggered. Rogue has lower AC and HP than Fighter, and hits harder. A solid win for the dragon. The Dragon could instead attack the more heavily fortified Fighter, and eat the reaction Sneak Attack attack from the Rogue, but this is clearly the inferior choice- why would a dragon do this?
Sentinel on a Fighter Dragon attacks Rogue, reaction attack triggered. Possible disadvantage given to the dragon's attack, or possible attacks negated. Additionally, the Rogue may Disengage from the dragon, and the dragon may not chase if the Fighter's Sentinel feat works. The dragon could alternatively attack the Fighter, ostensibly better-protected than the Rogue, leaving the Rogue unmolested. A tough choice for the dragon. |
| #53PsikerlordOct 20, 2014 1:13:09 |
|
| (Reply to #52)FrogReaver |
|
| #55melloredOct 20, 2014 5:04:49 | A 2-handed fighter does more damage then the rogue, and doesn't have uncanny dodge. So it's rather likely that the dragon will want to kill the fighter first, and it's good for the rogue to pick up sential.
If the choice is between a sword & board fighter and rogue, the rogue is squishier. And it's good for the fighter to pick up sential. |
| #56KalaniOct 20, 2014 8:28:00 | Here's a thought.
Not all classes have to be equal in every facet of combat.
A fighter is too busy making (and perfecting) proactive attacks (represented by their increasing number of extra attacks) to worry about the occasional OA. They want to make sure their strikes count when it matters most, and to take out their opponents before they have a chance to act themselves. Reacting to a dead opponent is always more preferable than reacting to a live one.
A rogues fighting style OTOH, is all about maximizing opportunities.... A rogue getting better at OAs due to increasing SA dice is a perfect example of this - given they are the epitome of opportunistic combatants.
I for one am perfectly fine with OAs exactly they way they are. Fighters don't have to be the best at every aspect of combat. If they did, they would have Sneak Attack in addition to their extra attacks (as they would master opportunistic combat as well). Fighters do what they were designed to do - be the most proactive warrior in the game. The only problem I have with the fighter, is that other classes seem to be better "fighters" at extremely low levels (1-3).
This minor issue self-corrects at 5th level when the fighter gains Extra Attacks.
Action Surge helps balance this somewhat, but not on a reliable basis. Personally, I would have been perfectly happy to see the fighter gain Extra Attacks at 2nd level (with all other classes gaining it at 5th level as normal). That would have given them an advantage at the level when other classes are eclipsing them and preventing the fighter from feeling inferior in the early game. From a mechanical standpoint, the only reason I can see why this was not done, was to prevent other classes from level-dipping fighter to gain extra attacks.
A better solution may have been to take a page from the early playtests, and grant all fighters 4 superiority dice at level 1 (starting at d4s perhaps). Battlemasters could then use their superiority dice to perform maneuvers, while all fighters would be able to add their superiority dice to their damage rolls. Superiority dice could scale for all fighters, remaining relevant. The battlemaster's superiority dice would scale faster (and gain new dice faster), perhaps with a recovery mechanic - but all fighters would gain the bonus.
Another thing fighters could have gained is Superior Advantage (at 5th level+): When a fighter gains advantage, it requires two sources of disadvantage to remove their advantage on ranged and melee weapon attacks.
|
| (Reply to #54)Clutchbone |
|
| (Reply to #57)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #58)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| (Reply to #59)FrogReaver |
|
| #612ChlorobutanalOct 21, 2014 17:01:05 | Arguing that a DM shouldn't play monsters with rules knowledge is like saying that a player shouldn't play their PC with rules knowledge.
It's certainly one style of play, but not one that makes for a very compelling "game" aspect. Additionally, just because there are rules that govern how the game works does not mean that game-world inhabitants are oblivious to how those rules work, even if they don't see them as "rules."
The bottom line is that OAs (or sentinel reaction attacks) are generally awarded to combatants for enemies attempting to ignore a combatant. Staying in melee (to threaten OAs or reaction melee attacks) and increasing the potency of OAs (or reaction attacks) creates a high incentive to be attacked.
A rogue can take Sentinel, but that reaction is now competing with Uncanny Dodge, which is a way to make Rogues more "tough." So, now you have a rogue predicated around hitting very hard (due to off-turn Sneak Attacks), but generally more vulnerable (due to melee positioning and potential lack of Uncanny Dodge). You've essentially started down the road to "glass cannon." |
| #62melloredOct 21, 2014 19:33:01 | sentinal and uncanny dodge are usually exclusive. you either get ignored, or attacked, rarely both at the same time. |
| #632ChlorobutanalOct 21, 2014 19:42:12 | Yes, but in FrogReaver's example, where a dragon (or other monster or monsters) would split its attacks, if it attacks the Rogue once, then attacks another melee combatant, the Rogue has to decide to reduce the damage or gamble upon getting a reaction attack later in the round. Conversely, if the other combatant is attacked first, the Rogue can take a reaction attack from Sentinel but then has no Uncanny Dodge to protect himself or herself later in the round. |
| (Reply to #63)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #61)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #65)2Chlorobutanal | Or you not use one kind of reaction, expecting the other to happen, and get to use neither.
There's a difference between "I know the PC wizard only picks fire spells, so all the spellcasters start the encounter with protection from energy - fire cast." and "The PC wizard is casting fire spells, so the enemy spellcaster, who happens to have protection from energy prepared, will now cast it."
Additionally, there's a difference between "The rogue has Sentinel and the fighter doesn't, so I'm only going to design encounters that circumvent that feat." and "The rogue has used Sentinel in this encounter to 'protect' the fighter, thereby signifying that he is the 'tank,' not the fighter, so the enemies are going to attack him rather than the fighter (in order to provoke less OAs and reactions)."
Sentinel grants extra attacks as a "soft" way to enforce "tanking" - basically it says "If you don't attack me, you're going to be punished." Thus, the interesting choice is created when attacking the Sentinel is a punishment in some form, also. If the Sentinel is both easier to attack and more punishing to ignore, why wouldn't the vast majority of enemies choose to attack the enticing target? Only mindless creatures would ignore this kind of situation.
Saying that monsters don't know how to play by the rules because they're unaware of the rules is a pretty weak argument. This is like saying that a cobra doesn't know how far it can strike because it doesn't know about weapon reach or that a wolf doesn't know to give up chasing a deer because it doesn't understand the "speed" stat and the "dash" action.
Likewise, most trained fighters, PC or NPC, will understand the limits of OAs and reactions as part of being "good at fighting." Likewise, a spellcaster isn't going to ready a magic missile and lose concentration on his or her haste spell "by accident" because he or she "didn't know the rules about readying spells." A wizard or spellcaster character should understand how their magic functions in the rules without having to call it "game rules."
If a PC wants to perform a specific action and it violates a rule that would cause a problem for the player, I think the DM should point it out before making the player "commit" to it, as their PC would likely understand "the rules" of the encounter. Likewise, an NPC is going to follow the combat rules in such a way as to present the most credible threat possible. |
| (Reply to #66)FrogReaver |
|
| #682ChlorobutanalOct 21, 2014 23:03:24 | If you have anything constructive to add, please go for it!
These anecdotes match my decades of D&D experience. |
| (Reply to #68)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #69)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| (Reply to #70)FrogReaver |
|
| #72DwarfslayerOct 22, 2014 3:27:56 | I've never liked multiple attacks for the reason that they basically make Opportunity Attacks weak. Basically at lower levels you start out wtih your OA doing equal damage to waht you'd do fro a round. In effect, a retreating foe gives you a whole bonus turn. Later when you've got 2 attacks, your OA is doing half the damage and a third of the damage if you've got 3 attacks. You can make up a little of the difference with 1/turn damage boosts like sneak attack. But it still doesn't change the fact that your OAs become less and less relevant at higher levels.
|
| #73melloredOct 22, 2014 7:51:32 |
|
| (Reply to #72)FrogReaver |
|
| #75PsikerlordOct 22, 2014 14:30:05 |
|
| (Reply to #73)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| #77melloredOct 22, 2014 17:43:01 |
|
| #782ChlorobutanalOct 22, 2014 19:41:36 | Yes, but my main contention is that by taking Sentinel to create that extra opportunity to use a reaction, you are also altering the way in which enemies will see your character, and thus lead to more attacks against your Sentinel PC.
The point about losing a reaction was tangential, but it is a possibility. |
| (Reply to #78)FrogReaver |
|
| #80paulstraitOct 22, 2014 20:47:26 |
|
| #81melloredOct 22, 2014 20:48:01 | That still means you get to use your reaction more often. Since you would be ignored without sentinal, and with it you get to use uncanny dodge. |
| (Reply to #80)FrogReaver | Thanks for the thoughts. I like how you have flavored sentinel and I think when using that flavor it's very good to have smarter enemies attack the sentinel user more often.
but that's not the only flavor sentinel can take and other favors may actually discourage certain enemies from attacking you and others may make enemies neutral to that.
im all for playing it off flavor but not all sentinel flavors will have the same effect on enemy behavior.
|
| #83paulstraitOct 22, 2014 21:05:02 | Yeah I agree with that for sure. that's an important point. I like to work out the details with my players when they get a new ability of how they imagine it working. Even if it doesn't affect anything mechanically (it usually doesn't), if nothing else it helps me remember what they have and enables some vivid descriptions. I can definitely imagine a sentinel who gains the advantage not by interposing but by waiting to take advantage of an enemy who is focused on their attack and therefore distracted (a rogue sentinel, perhaps). I think it basically should be up to the player -- they can either gain the advantage of the opportunity attack or the advantage of having some control over who the enemy attacks. |