TOPIC: Rule Clarifications – D&D.5

Andrek wrote:
A 5% chance is very low and unlikely to occur very often...

Andrek wrote:
You are adding another dice roll dependant on additional logic. This is over the top for me.

I agree with Scott (there is a first time for everything!), lets keep it simple.
the D&D combat mechanic presupposed a fluid dynamic combat where all participants are moving continually. think about being in a fight (those of you that have been...!) you didnt stand in one place like a figure, you moved to get and advantage even more so if you had multiple opponents! D&D in any of its iterations was simple, roll one d20 to determine outcome. and then the DM interprets it. this isn't rolemaster with crit and fumble tables, or warhammer with a multitude of situation modifying dice its straight up simple cause and effect stuff., with the colour provided by the DM.

My vote keep it simple. use the rule of 1 if you want to add flavour, i.e. give the DM license to mess you up on a 1 but equally apply it to the monsters as well!

Sorry to stick my nose in as I'm not a DM, but was the aim of the rules to keep things as simple as possible? Does not having an extra rule for this cause a problem or is the thought of not having a rule for it like other systems feel like it should be there?
Why not wait and see if it is a problem first and then look to rule on it.
I have seen groups with 8+ players. Are you not just giving yourself a headache?
P.S. Don't forget the Rogues

Steboacha wrote:
don't have to apologise for having an opinion... that's what this is all about! I personally think we ought not to single out any colours... pinks, magentas, puce, all deserve equal footing!

and do consider running a game... it gives you an entirely different perspective on rules and how games are run... indeed in my opinion players don't play well until they have been in the chair, and realised exactly what it takes to entertain!

I agree that melee participants are constantly moving in combat which is precisely why I think it should be harder to hit your intended target. For instance you could have a clear shot at your enemy but just as you release the arrow, the flow of combat shifts and your mate feints straight into the path of the missile.

I think the disadvantage rule is a simple, elegant way of quickly applying that idea. I do like the suggestion that it only hits the adjacent target if both rolls fail. But it should only cause damage to the bystander if either of those rolls beat the bystander's AC. Quite often it will result in no damage being done but could result in a 'hey watch where you're pointing it' roleplay situation.

It's true though, keep it simple is the watchphrase here. But the DM should apply whatever situational fiat they think appropriate for their style. As long as the players are clear on the consequences of their actions from the start and the rule is kept consistent there shouldn't a problem.

i think that that part of the archers skills that he learns is to shoot accurately so he only fires when he has a clear shot, he will be moving around to get that shot.
When two sword fighters fight and another joins then should you be rolling to see if any of the comrades hits each other ?
I think as well if the archer is firing at a person who is in combat with another , he should maybe get a bonus maybe the target is flat footed ?! Radical idea ... Since the attacker is focused on the other person not the bow man when an arrow fires out at him, he maybe unsighted due to the comrade blocking his view , till the last second. In combat you tend to concentrate on the person in front of you. If the bowman is firing from the side or slightly out of view , maybe in cover ... Maybe he should get advantage for this ?

The main thing I REALLY agree with is that 5e tried to iron out too many issues. For that issue I will give them credit( still miss the truck load of feats ! ) . So no advantage or disadvantage is about ok. ... Yes I was playing a bowman ranger so I am slightly biased .....