Is it fair or even allowed?

[RustyArmor]

So I was a 4th level monk with 20 ac (the other member was a monk and druid that barely knew how to play so didn't do much) fighting 4 knights and 4 guards and one boss (not sure what he was). We were in the doorway to protect our casters from harm but this was granting the knights cover AC, they were getting a +2 bonus while we were not. So they had a 20 AC, already struggling to hit them (mostly bad rolls) but when I did was just getting parried so missed anyway. The DM however was rolling like a boss, my 20 AC getting hit once or twice each round. After my horrible death I asked how I was getting destroyed. He said on the enemies turn the knights would attack move, the guards move in hit me move back, then the knights move back into place blocking us from getting in. I said it seemed like an encounter we couldn't win and they just told me I'm a moron and didn't use tactics or my Ki to dodge (Wasted it trying to hit them).

Anyways rant aside. Is that a legal tactic? It seems on players turn you take your turn and that is it, you really can't move back and forth in sync with other players outside their own turn, or can you?

[Townopolis]

Your DM was using the new classic "goblin conga line." It's RAW in 5e, but generally considered stupid and scummy, at least on these forums.

Edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure the parts where the knights took their action before another creature's turn and then used their remaining movement after said creature's turn is actually illegal.

[DireSickFish]

Sounds like rules were broken. They should not be able to attack and cycle out every round due to the way inititive works. Guards and knights can't delay actions or anything so at best they get 1 swap.

Also your AC is high for lvl4, not obtainable with point buy but possible with great roles. So you were not particularly weak in this fight, especially since you were bottlenecking the doorway.

Also if they were moving out of range you should have been getting 1 attack of opportunity as a reaction every round. Every time an enemy moves out of your attack range you can, as a reaction, attack them once.

Unless these guys fell like paper when hit they sound a bit to tough but i can't know without seeing all there stats.

[RustyArmor]

The point system was set slightly higher, so had 18 AC and the one character gave me +2 AC with some spell. Not sure what the stats of guards/knights were but since attack rolls of 23 were missing them. I am assuming they had 20 ac, +2 for cover, and +2 when they parried.

[ad_hoc]

The point system was set slightly higher, so had 18 AC and the one character gave me +2 AC with some spell. Not sure what the stats of guards/knights were but since attack rolls of 23 were missing them. I am assuming they had 20 ac, +2 for cover, and +2 when they parried.

To put that into perspective an Ancient Black Dragon has an AC of 22.

No wonder you lost.

Numbers are lower in this edition.

There is a bit of a learning curve to it if you are used to something like 3e.

[Giant2005]

There are a couple of things the DM did wrong.
Firstly he shouldn't be giving the enemy cover bonus and not you. If you can't hit them then they can't hit you or if you can hit them then they can hit you. The bonuses or lack there-of should be the same for both sides of the fight due to the same obstacles being between both parties.
Secondly, the actions of the Knights seem a little dubious. They can attack on their turn and then move away so someone else can take their place (Giving you an opportunity attack in the process) but they can't move back in until their turn comes around again. They could however do what you described if they chose not to use the attack action and instead opted for the ready action. If they did that, they could move out of the way (Inspiring an opportunity attack) and then use their ready action to wait and use the rest of their movement after the others have attacked and move back in before your action - they could not use both the ready and attack actions however so they would not be attacking you if they went that route.

[silveralen]

That's.... no.

First off, with a 3 cr, four knights is already on the tough side for a fight for a lvl four party, unless your group is particularly large.

Second, the DM is outright breaking the rules with that movement. The knights can't move after their turn by RAW. Now, if he modified them to have the ability to, he pushed the CR of each higher, again making this a less feasible encounter.

In fact, you could easily have splatted the guards with a reaction attack when they moved back to allow the knights into place, making it a less than intelligent strategy. Unless both parties were unaware they existed, or he wasn't bothering to explain the movement to you (which is almost what it sounded like).

Attack roles of 23 missing them is... kinda absurd. They where using shield and swords, not great swords? Even then, he gave them something beyond their normal parry, and if it was cover it should've applied to you as well. 22+ is getting into the highest possible ACs in the game.

Now, the fact he went and blamed it on you is actually ticking me off slightly. If you want, direct him to this thread, it might be helpful for him.

[Person_Man]

Your DM was using the new classic "goblin conga line." It's RAW in 5e, but generally considered stupid and scummy, at least on these forums.

This, exactly. I wrote several long posts (like this one (http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4081706)) about it here and on the WotC forum during the 5E play tests, and was basically shouted down and ignored.

The short answer is that although he may have screwed up on the particulars of granting cover, your DM was basically acting within the rules as written. But doing so basically requires metagaming. The knights/DM basically read the 5E rules before combat and devised the best tactics to use accordingly, rather then just acting like knights and using whatever tactics they would naturally given the circumstances of their position/intelligence/organization/etc within the game world.

Also, some DMs treat combats like a puzzle to be solved. In other words, they make it very difficult on purpose, but the players can still win by using a specific tactic, spell, magic item, interaction with the environment ("I pull the lever to close the portcullis before the evil Knights can get to me!"), etc. Other DMs just write really hard combats sometimes, and expect players to retreat (or not enter combat in the first place against superior foes) if they can't win. Although I personally would never use the Goblin Conga Line tactic, I am this type of DM. Though I make the (highly variable) difficulty and potential "puzzle pieces" of each combat very transparent to the players, so that they can choose whether and how to engage their potential enemies.

[George W. Obama]

Those tactics sound fishy at best if you ask me. And a fight of that challenge sounds pretty one-sided at your level. It sounds like that DM must be new or pretty bad. Or just one of those DMs that kills a couple PCs every session. Those types of DMs also seem to have an obsession with DMPCs that become the main characters of the quest while the PCs are just reminded of how worthless the DM thinks they are. I've also seen quite a few of those type of DM use haunted houses every quest, and they want the PCs to act really scared and frightened despite the fact that adventurers are generally a cut above the average person. And then if you do act afraid of their haunted houses the way that they want, they say that you're over-reacting and breaking up the game.

All I can say is: Don't play BS quests like that. It's just not right to subject yourself to that manner of torture just because you have nothing to do on a Thursday afternoon.

[Demonic Spoon]

This is a side effect of the game being turn-based even though actions are logically happening in real time. The Goblin Conga Line (great name) is RAW-correct but extremely gamey.

[Bellberith]

So I was a 4th level monk with 20 ac (the other member was a monk and druid that barely knew how to play so didn't do much) fighting 4 knights and 4 guards and one boss (not sure what he was). We were in the doorway to protect our casters from harm but this was granting the knights cover AC, they were getting a +2 bonus while we were not. So they had a 20 AC, already struggling to hit them (mostly bad rolls) but when I did was just getting parried so missed anyway. The DM however was rolling like a boss, my 20 AC getting hit once or twice each round. After my horrible death I asked how I was getting destroyed. He said on the enemies turn the knights would attack move, the guards move in hit me move back, then the knights move back into place blocking us from getting in. I said it seemed like an encounter we couldn't win and they just told me I'm a moron and didn't use tactics or my Ki to dodge (Wasted it trying to hit them).

Anyways rant aside. Is that a legal tactic? It seems on players turn you take your turn and that is it, you really can't move back and forth in sync with other players outside their own turn, or can you?

I was actually at this session and this guy is completely wrong on multiple parts.

The fight was 6 lvl 4 characters vs 2 knights, 6 guards, 1 bandit captain.

They were using a doorway so the knights standing at both sides of the doorway had +2 AC for halfcover and the monk like-wise had +2AC for halfcover (works both ways) he had shield of faith on him also from the party cleric. his current AC standing in that doorway was a 22 to the knights. The DM rolled very high for the knights and the OP never even used the monks dodge feature.

Basically the fight went like this, the knights stood on both sides of the doorway and the smaller guards + captain would take their turn moving 10ft towards the door, attacking, then moving away from the door. so they were rotating with the middle of the doorway open at all times.

there was no out of turn movement of any sort. this player clearly was misunderstanding what was happening and he also didn't know how to play the monk seeing as how he was not using dodge even when those knights had to roll a 17 or higher to hit him in the first place.

Later on this same fight was completed with 4 lvl 4 characters that actually played their characters to the fullest. The party that completed it was 1 druid, 1 monk, 1 cleric, 1 rogue/wizard.

Edit: People in his group are laughing at this btw, as they know what actually happened and the real numbers of the fight. Also, seeing as how they finished the fight with less people and much less danger, clearly the tactics the party used the first time were at fault.

[Selkirk]

it might not be fair but it is allowed...and is in fact precisely what the pc's would do to an enemy. it makes the heroic stand at the door the worst possible tactic as you are exposed to endless attacks. and it does make sense that knights (particularly knights) would use tactics available to them-but does it suck really bad? yep.

[RustyArmor]

Opps my bad I swore four of them were knights. But have to understand the tactics were a tad extreme for one person. The one was afk, two others were still trying to learn the game. And not sure what the other was doing most the time. XD
I used up all my Ki with flurry tries so had no more left to do the dodge action sadly so that was not a choice at the time.
Either way sorry for misinterpreting it.

[Selkirk]

i completely agree that it's an unfair encounter (we ran into this with a room of goblins). with a move/attack/move system , which works wonderfully in just about any other situation, these sorts of tactics make for a really unfun battle (it really isn't a battle as you are just standing there being pincushioned).

and from a dm perspective...the players would do the same exact thing to an enemy. still, the dm has to put the brakes on...one of the knights has to slip or stay engaged or something. the idea of the tank is just that to tank. these scenarios render the tank useless, the party frustrated and the evil/noob dm delighted.

notes-and must agree that 4 knights/4 guards and a boss is beyond a deadly encounter...

[DireSickFish]

Edit: people in the group and laughing at this btw, because they know what actually happened. This guy blew it out of proportion and they finished the encounter with less numbers and better tactics.
Basically the fight went like this, the knights stood on both sides of the doorway and the smaller guards + captain would take their turn moving 10ft towards the door, attacking, then moving away from the door. so they were rotating with the middle of the doorway open at all times.

there was no out of turn movement of any sort. this player clearly was misunderstanding what was happening and he also didn't know how to play the monk seeing as how he was not using dodge even when those knights had to roll a 17 or higher to hit him in the first place.

Later on this same fight was completed with 4 lvl 4 characters that actually played their characters to the fullest. The party that completed it was 1 druid, 1 monk, 1 cleric, 1 rogue/wizard.

Edit: People in his group are laughing at this btw, as they know what actually happened and the real numbers of the fight. Also, seeing as how they finished the fight with less people and much less danger, clearly the tactics the party used the first time were at fault.

Well considering he was using his ki to flurry, which is a very common and viable way to use ki, he could not dodge. I also think it's more than a bit demeaning to say he "desn't know how to play" just because he didn't do exactly what you would do int he instance. As yous aid his AC was already high, why should he need to improve his defense even further?

While it sounds like the OP didn't have a full grasp of the situation it also sounds like you guys are being unfair to him. Treating him like he's playing super wrong, and laughing at him for not understanding his role.

[Vogonjeltz]

Some adjustments for you:
Back up, close the door and hold it shut. You take no damage.

Or, block the doorway from inside the room, only one enemy can actually be present in the doorway at a time. If they try to leave use your opportunity attack to grapple them, preventing the enemy from vacating the location. Then trip them on your turn, proceed to hose them.

Or, let them enter the room if they like and position yourselves such that any enemy gives up 4+ opportunity attacks for such shenanigans, dying instantly.

[Easy_Lee]

Something you might try next time is hold an action to dash in the room the moment someone moves out of the way. That will let you act outside of your turn, so you'll be able to get in the room and mess them up.

[Vogonjeltz]

Something you might try next time is hold an action to dash in the room the moment someone moves out of the way. That will let you act outside of your turn, so you'll be able to get in the room and mess them up.

A monk alone in a room with 9 enemies, what could possibly go wrong for the player?

[Bellberith]

Well considering he was using his ki to flurry, which is a very common and viable way to use ki, he could not dodge. I also think it's more than a bit demeaning to say he "desn't know how to play" just because he didn't do exactly what you would do int he instance. As yous aid his AC was already high, why should he need to improve his defense even further?

While it sounds like the OP didn't have a full grasp of the situation it also sounds like you guys are being unfair to him. Treating him like he's playing super wrong, and laughing at him for not understanding his role.

when you have a full room of people attacking you, dodge is a better use of ki by an infinite margin.

if he understood the clase and game mechanics there would be no thread on this. also, i edited my post in the wrong spot twice lol.

Edit: why would anyone ever use flurry when 9 people is attacking him? the knights had to roll a 17 or higher to hit, and so did the guards (guards didnt have half-cover to him because they were the ones rotating in the middle of the doorway, since they have a +3 AB and the knights have a +5 thats is why they both has to roll a 17 to hit.)

Using dodge makes the chance that any one of them would hit him very miniscule.

Edit (again): on a side note, nobody called the OP a moron. However he was told about dodge vs flurry in that situation while it was happening. And as pointed out earlier, the encounter was clearly not too hard for their level seeing as how 4 people completed it when they had 6 the time the OP was there.

[Easy_Lee]

A monk alone in a room with 9 enemies, what could possibly go wrong for the player?

Right, which is why you'd have to time it with your party members to all rush in. Of course, my personal solution would have been a tactical retreat and then burn the building down, assuming that was possible.

[GiantOctopodes]

I was actually at this session and this guy is completely wrong on multiple parts.

The fight was 6 lvl 4 characters vs 2 knights, 6 guards, 1 bandit captain.

They were using a doorway so the knights standing at both sides of the doorway had +2 AC for halfcover and the monk like-wise had +2AC for halfcover (works both ways) he had shield of faith on him also from the party cleric. his current AC standing in that doorway was a 22 to the knights. The DM rolled very high for the knights and the OP never even used the monks dodge feature.

Basically the fight went like this, the knights stood on both sides of the doorway and the smaller guards + captain would take their turn moving 10ft towards the door, attacking, then moving away from the door. so they were rotating with the middle of the doorway open at all times.

there was no out of turn movement of any sort. this player clearly was misunderstanding what was happening and he also didn't know how to play the monk seeing as how he was not using dodge even when those knights had to roll a 17 or higher to hit him in the first place.

Later on this same fight was completed with 4 lvl 4 characters that actually played their characters to the fullest. The party that completed it was 1 druid, 1 monk, 1 cleric, 1 rogue/wizard.

Edit: People in his group are laughing at this btw, as they know what actually happened and the real numbers of the fight. Also, seeing as how they finished the fight with less people and much less danger, clearly the tactics the party used the first time were at fault.

This is still an incredibly cheesy and unrealistic tactic and is essentially metagaming on the part of the monsters. Think about this in a real fight- within the span of 6 seconds, everyone runs into the same space, attacks, then returns to where they were? In a bottleneck? But beyond that, it also means that they should have been drawing AoOs from the monk every turn. This is the real reason why it normally should and would not happen- the first guy to go every turn should not be so thrilled to give his enemy a free attack at all times.

Also, if they had 20 Base AC, that means they're in full plate with shields, which is frankly absurd- a suit of full plate costs more than 5 year's pay for them, or put another way, for the same cost you could employ 50 soldiers for a month.

In terms of how to counter this, if you're already within their threatened area, you should be able on your turn to move into the open space, run up to the guard you're peppering with AoOs without leaving their threatened area (or at most leaving one of theirs), slaughter him, and run back to your bottleneck position. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Repeat each turn, and suddenly it's just the two knights (who you've been ignoring this whole time while your mage kills them with heat metal) and the bandit captain, who becomes much less scary when he's all alone.

You could also run up to the someone, grapple them, and drag them into the middle space, effectively cutting it off from everyone else. Or as previously indicated use the AoO to grapple them and then murder them on your turn.

Ultimately, though, again, the fact that being in a bottleneck did not reduce the number of incoming attacks *at all* is cheap. Accusing a character of not knowing how to play properly when they're being pincushioned by 9 attackers per round (with only 3 open spaces in front of them, without ranged weapons being used) is a cheap shot. Any DM who did that to me would earn and deserve all manner of cheap tactics being sent back their way, and since "hey, the rules allow it" is apparently good enough for them, that's exactly what they'd get.

[Bellberith]

This is still an incredibly cheesy and unrealistic tactic and is essentially metagaming on the part of the monsters. Think about this in a real fight- within the span of 6 seconds, everyone runs into the same space, attacks, then returns to where they were? In a bottleneck? But beyond that, it also means that they should have been drawing AoOs from the monk every turn. This is the real reason why it normally should and would not happen- the first guy to go every turn should not be so thrilled to give his enemy a free attack at all times.

Also, if they had 20 Base AC, that means they're in full plate with shields, which is frankly absurd- a suit of full plate costs more than 5 year's pay for them, or put another way, for the same cost you could employ 50 soldiers for a month.

In terms of how to counter this, if you're already within their threatened area, you should be able on your turn to move into the open space, run up to the guard you're peppering with AoOs without leaving their threatened area (or at most leaving one of theirs), slaughter him, and run back to your bottleneck position. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Repeat each turn, and suddenly it's just the two knights (who you've been ignoring this whole time while your mage kills them with heat metal) and the bandit captain, who becomes much less scary when he's all alone.

You could also run up to the someone, grapple them, and drag them into the middle space, effectively cutting it off from everyone else. Or as previously indicated use the AoO to grapple them and then murder them on your turn.

Ultimately, though, again, the fact that being in a bottleneck did not reduce the number of incoming attacks *at all* is cheap. Accusing a character of not knowing how to play properly when they're being pincushioned by 9 attackers per round (with only 3 open spaces in front of them, without ranged weapons being used) is a cheap shot. Any DM who did that to me would earn and deserve all manner of cheap tactics being sent back their way, and since "hey, the rules allow it" is apparently good enough for them, that's exactly what they'd get.

if he stood literally 1 space back, it would worked easily, ready an action to grapple the first guy who steps in the square and then the whole group can burst him down while he cant move and more people can run into the doorway to attack. however, he was standing IN the doorway. leaving himself open to attack by 3 people at any given time.

aside from that, the knights were the same knights depicted in the MM. the reason they had a 20AC TO HIM was because they had half cover by standing to the sides of the doors.

the tactics and positioning were bad. simple as that. it was not cheap, the enemy isnt stupid.... they can use tactics also.

Edit: using the NPCs with tactics is NEVER cheap unless they are very stupid, or animals.

[Stormageddon]

I was actually at this session and this guy is completely wrong on multiple parts.

The fight was 6 lvl 4 characters vs 2 knights, 6 guards, 1 bandit captain.

They were using a doorway so the knights standing at both sides of the doorway had +2 AC for halfcover and the monk like-wise had +2AC for halfcover (works both ways) he had shield of faith on him also from the party cleric. his current AC standing in that doorway was a 22 to the knights. The DM rolled very high for the knights and the OP never even used the monks dodge feature.

Basically the fight went like this, the knights stood on both sides of the doorway and the smaller guards + captain would take their turn moving 10ft towards the door, attacking, then moving away from the door. so they were rotating with the middle of the doorway open at all times.

there was no out of turn movement of any sort. this player clearly was misunderstanding what was happening and he also didn't know how to play the monk seeing as how he was not using dodge even when those knights had to roll a 17 or higher to hit him in the first place.

Later on this same fight was completed with 4 lvl 4 characters that actually played their characters to the fullest. The party that completed it was 1 druid, 1 monk, 1 cleric, 1 rogue/wizard.

Edit: People in his group are laughing at this btw, as they know what actually happened and the real numbers of the fight. Also, seeing as how they finished the fight with less people and much less danger, clearly the tactics the party used the first time were at fault.

It does seem like the group is being a bit unfair to the OP. It seems like the DM said I see your Bottle necking tactic and raise you a move-attack-move. It's unclear as to what the rest of the party was doing during this or why the cleric in the party didn't cast a cantrip once the monk was down to save his character.

But fighting tactics are about a group not one guy doing one thing different. You guys got out maneuvered by your DM pure and simple.

[Bellberith]

It does seem like the group is being a bit unfair to the OP. It seems like the DM said I see your Bottle necking tactic and raise you a move-attack-move. It's unclear as to what the rest of the party was doing during this or why the cleric in the party didn't cast a cantrip once the monk was down to save his character.

But fighting tactics are about a group not one guy doing one thing different. You guys got out maneuvered by your DM pure and simple.

he didnt bottleneck. actually, if you read my post above this one you will see that the players really ended up bottlenecking themselves.

[Person_Man]

it might not be fair but it is allowed...and is in fact precisely what the pc's would do to an enemy. it makes the heroic stand at the door the worst possible tactic as you are exposed to endless attacks. and it does make sense that knights (particularly knights) would use tactics available to them-but does it suck really bad? yep.

You are absolutely correct.

The theater of the mind oriented 5E rules do not support the traditional "battlefield control" oriented combat that was common in 3.X, Pathfinder, 4E. It is more akin to the combat of 1E/2E D&D, or FATE, or a tabletop version of Final Fantasy.

[Bellberith]

You are absolutely correct.

The theater of the mind oriented 5E rules do not support the traditional "battlefield control" oriented combat that was common in 3.X, Pathfinder, 4E. It is more akin to the combat of 1E/2E D&D, or FATE, or a tabletop version of Final Fantasy.

Read my above posts and you will also see the DM was in no way being unfair. The players literally did to themselves what they were trying to do to the enemy. i also posted a way they could have reversed the situation (aka taking 1 step back)

The players caused the issue the OP posted, and later on rethought their strategy and took on the same group and won with 4 people instead of losing with 6.

[Giant2005]

Has anyone else read this thread and been left with a feeling of gladness that they aren't in that group?
The guy literally placed his character in harm's way so they could safely stay out of reach behind him and made the ultimate sacrifice on their behalf. In return they openly laugh at him and mock his poor decision which was made for their benefit.
I'd be pretty annoyed too.

[Bellberith]

Has anyone else read this thread and been left with a feeling of gladness that they aren't in that group?
The guy literally placed his character in harm's way so they could safely stay out of reach behind him and made the ultimate sacrifice on their behalf. In return they openly laugh at him and mock his poor decision which was made for their benefit.
I'd be pretty annoyed too.

Players should always be laughing, it is a game. Also people warned him about what was happening and he didn't listen.

Have you ever watched videos where people fail at something and get hurt but you laugh? well this is the same situation.

[Selkirk]

Read my above posts and you will also see the DM was in no way being unfair. The players literally did to themselves what they were trying to do to the enemy. i also posted a way they could have reversed the situation (aka taking 1 step back)

The players caused the issue the OP posted, and later on rethought their strategy and took on the same group and won with 4 people instead of losing with 6.

it still doesn't change the fact that it's a sucky encounter. the tank being heroic (probably thinking of a thousand fantasy novels/games/movies etc..) is going to hold the line...only to find out that he's dead in one round. it's some crap that's built into an otherwise elegant combat system.

tank at doorway misses on his swing then it's enemies turn and all he can do is hope that some of the 9 dice rolls miss...the only people penalized in this encounter are the fighter's own party! they can't effectively fight with the tank in the way and with the knights having cover ...it's almost beside the point anyways. this sort of thing would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Bellberith]

it still doesn't change the fact that it's a sucky encounter. the tank being heroic (probably thinking of a thousand fantasy novels/games/movies etc..) is going to hold the line...only to find out that he's dead in one round. it's some crap that's built into an otherwise elegant combat system.

tank at doorway misses on his swing then it's enemies turn and all he can do is hope that some of the 9 dice rolls miss...the only people penalized in this encounter are the fighter's own party! they can't effectively fight with the tank in the way and with the knights having cover ...it's almost beside the point anyways. this sort of thing would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't know if you deliberate ignored what was said, or just didn't understand it.

But he also had cover to the knights. Also he would have been holding the line and only taking an attack from 1 person had he took 1 step backwards, so instead of standing IN the doorway he would be standing right behind it forcing the enemies to stand in the doorway to hit him. He could then grapple a guy making it so no other enemy on that side could swing at him and making the grappled enemy be in easy hitting distance of at least 2 other of his allies.

Characters aren't as invincible in 5.0 as they were in 3.5 there is no "heroically making a stand against an army!" hell, one of the players in a game that i run was level 16 and he got wrecked by 4thugs+1berserker.

Edit: I dont know how your games work. but easy encounters are never fun. The most fun in D&D comes from RP and dangerous situations. This encounter was designed to be difficult, because it was the end of a quest. But in no way was it impossible, especially since 4 people did it with 0 casualties. 5.0 is play intelligently, and win. Play like you are the chosen one, and you die, fast.

[Giant2005]

Players should always be laughing, it is a game. Also people warned him about what was happening and he didn't listen.

Have you ever watched videos where people fail at something and get hurt but you laugh? well this is the same situation.

I don't get it... How did he fail? Because he died?
You said the enemies needed to roll a 17 or better to hit him, obviously his death had more to do with terrible luck than any sort of failure. His decision to stand in that doorway was made in order to prevent his friends from being attacked and killed. Although he died in the process, you said the others survived which sounds like a huge success to me.
He protected you. Gratitude is more deserved than mockery.

[Selkirk]

I don't know if you deliberate ignored what was said, or just didn't understand it.

But he also had cover to the knights. Also he would have been holding the line and only taking an attack from 1 person had he took 1 step backwards, so instead of standing IN the doorway he would be standing right behind it forcing the enemies to stand in the doorway to hit him. He could then grapple a guy making it so no other enemy on that side could swing at him and making the grappled enemy be in easy hitting distance of at least 2 other of his allies.

so he wins initiative ...swings at bad guy and misses. things are still good at this point, but wait he now has 9 attacks coming his way. and stepping back a pace won't help him (move/attack/move assuming 30 ft of movement). the 9 that could attack him can still attack him and in fact makes the party's position worse in some ways-they are getting completely funneled.

what's the way out of it? some long drawn out junk that bores everyone to tears and at the end a hollow victory. it turns what could and should have been a heroic battle with everyone blasting away into a tactical hex crawl of hell. but we disagree...what is fun to you sounds terrible to me.

[Jacque]

But doing so basically requires metagaming. The knights/DM basically read the 5E rules before combat and devised the best tactics to use accordingly, rather then just acting like knights and using whatever tactics they would naturally given the circumstances of their position/intelligence/organization/etc within the game world.

Is any DM blessed with a group of players who doesn't fight exactly that way?

[Bellberith]

so he wins initiative ...swings at bad guy and misses. things are still good at this point, but wait he now has 9 attacks coming his way. and stepping back a pace won't help him (move/attack/move assuming 30 ft of movement). the 9 that could attack him can still attack him and in fact makes the party's position worse in some ways-they are getting completely funneled.

what's the way out of it? some long drawn out junk that bores everyone to tears and at the end a hollow victory. it turns what could and should have been a heroic battle with everyone blasting away into a tactical hex crawl of hell. but we disagree...what is fun to you sounds terrible to me.

lol there are multiple ways to go about it. the way that won it for them with 4 people was rushing the room, using AOE to kill all the guards (druids thunderwave) then focusing the 2 knights + 1 captain. The way that lost it for them with 6 people was bottlenecking THEMSELVES(i cant stress that part enough) vs the enemy.


Is any DM blessed with a group of players who doesn't fight exactly that way?

Exactly, i would assume knights would be trained to use proper tactics.... They are in no way stupid and knights are in a sense, commanders of small squads.

Players on the other hand sometimes play like they have a 20int and will come up with genius strategies when their character is a feral orc (3.5 reference). Why can the players come up with strats to win but the NPCs cant? especially when said NPCs would have likely been trained using these specific tactics. Remember, these aren't animals. These are trained guards and knights.

[GiantOctopodes]

if he stood literally 1 space back, it would worked easily, ready an action to grapple the first guy who steps in the square and then the whole group can burst him down while he cant move and more people can run into the doorway to attack. however, he was standing IN the doorway. leaving himself open to attack by 3 people at any given time.

aside from that, the knights were the same knights depicted in the MM. the reason they had a 20AC TO HIM was because they had half cover by standing to the sides of the doors.

the tactics and positioning were bad. simple as that. it was not cheap, the enemy isnt stupid.... they can use tactics also.

Edit: using the NPCs with tactics is NEVER cheap unless they are very stupid, or animals.

Not at all. You can move through a nonhostile creature's space, and can move diagonally. Having a friendly in a doorway does not block it whatsoever, and at that point they could all move past into the hall behind him, or do the same "melee sniping" or "conga lining" tactics into one of the diagonal spaces. Even if there is no diagonal spaces (there are two other people willing and able to occupy them and get attacked, the only situation where that position is tactically more advantageous), there is nothing preventing them from moving into their friendly's space, attacking, and retreating back. If the DM is going the cheap tactics route, why not go all the way?

If they had 20 AC to him, attack rolls of 23 should not have missed. He specified they parried attacks of 23 (two below the AC of the God Tiamat by the way), so either that is an incorrect statement or their AC was higher than in the MM. I will also point out that half cover was used incorrectly- being in a square adjacent to him, even attacking from a doorway, means there is no object blocking half or more of his body. A Wall is only cover if it is a horizontal wall one can hide behind, and in the same way that it does not provide cover if someone is on the same side of it, and since people fill the entirety of the 5' space they are in, all of the monk's attacks would have no obstruction, so there should have been no AC bonus. The situation where he would *actually* have half cover is if he had allies willing to get hit in the two spaces adjacent to him, was standing behind the door, and had grappled someone in the door, and they were conga lining anyway. *then* he would have a creature (the grappled one) in the way and would get the half cover, as would they against the inevitable AoOs in return.

The thing about the 'tactics' used is that they *aren't* tactics, they're tricks of the rules. Do you *really* think that the Knights would be trained, when walking down a 10' wide corridor, to walk in single file, so that when attacking, they have a space free and can have everyone behind the main person run forward, attack, and return to their place in line? It's a clear break from reality and what that creature would actually do, based on its understanding of tactics, order, and discipline.

NPCs with *real* tactics would include things like flipping over tables to make *actual* cover, having two or three knights hold the doorway while the guards pepper them with crossbow shots, or having a pot of oil above the door which they tip over then ignite, creating an environmental hazard as they continue to pepper away from behind cover with their ranged weaponry. Those I would never count as cheap, but instead a realistic expectation of the results of their knowledge and training. Taking advantage of the limitations of the game system to have multiple individuals simultaneously occupy a space, in order to artificially inflate the number of attackers in a bottleneck? Yes, that's cheap.

Imagine applying this same logic to the Spartans holding the pass. They hold it because there, the enemy's numbers are meaningless... except since the enemy only holds every *other* space along their line (which should in theory reduce the number of attackers, you would think) it's actually 3:1 odds along the front line, as the rest of the troops rotate into the empty slot, since their enemies clearly have a better understanding of "tactics".

[The_Ditto]

Having read through this thread and catching up, just wanted to ask one question .. it seems to have gotten ignored after being mentioned initially.

Opportunity attacks?

When the guards moved up and retreated, did the monk get his OA on one of them / round ?
(if he still missed, well, sucks to be him ... sounds like bad luck, not bad tactics to me .. )

If he wasn't given the OA, then that may be 1 thing to ding the DM on ... but other than that, from my little XP with 5e, doesn't sound like anything terribly horrid one way or the other .. just sounds like (mostly) bad luck on Party side.

[Bellberith]

Not at all. You can move through a nonhostile creature's space, and can move diagonally. Having a friendly in a doorway does not block it whatsoever, and at that point they could all move past into the hall behind him, or do the same "melee sniping" or "conga lining" tactics into one of the diagonal spaces. Even if there is no diagonal spaces (there are two other people willing and able to occupy them and get attacked, the only situation where that position is tactically more advantageous), there is nothing preventing them from moving into their friendly's space, attacking, and retreating back. If the DM is going the cheap tactics route, why not go all the way?

If they had 20 AC to him, attack rolls of 23 should not have missed. He specified they parried attacks of 23 (two below the AC of the God Tiamat by the way), so either that is an incorrect statement or their AC was higher than in the MM. I will also point out that half cover was used incorrectly- being in a square adjacent to him, even attacking from a doorway, means there is no object blocking half or more of his body. A Wall is only cover if it is a horizontal wall one can hide behind, and in the same way that it does not provide cover if someone is on the same side of it, and since people fill the entirety of the 5' space they are in, all of the monk's attacks would have no obstruction, so there should have been no AC bonus. The situation where he would *actually* have half cover is if he had allies willing to get hit in the two spaces adjacent to him, was standing behind the door, and had grappled someone in the door, and they were conga lining anyway. *then* he would have a creature (the grappled one) in the way and would get the half cover, as would they against the inevitable AoOs in return.

The thing about the 'tactics' used is that they *aren't* tactics, they're tricks of the rules. Do you *really* think that the Knights would be trained, when walking down a 10' wide corridor, to walk in single file, so that when attacking, they have a space free and can have everyone behind the main person run forward, attack, and return to their place in line? It's a clear break from reality and what that creature would actually do, based on its understanding of tactics, order, and discipline.

NPCs with *real* tactics would include things like flipping over tables to make *actual* cover, having two or three knights hold the doorway while the guards pepper them with crossbow shots, or having a pot of oil above the door which they tip over then ignite, creating an environmental hazard as they continue to pepper away from behind cover with their ranged weaponry. Those I would never count as cheap, but instead a realistic expectation of the results of their knowledge and training. Taking advantage of the limitations of the game system to have multiple individuals simultaneously occupy a space, in order to artificially inflate the number of attackers in a bottleneck? Yes, that's cheap.

Imagine applying this same logic to the Spartans holding the pass. They hold it because there, the enemy's numbers are meaningless... except since the enemy only holds every *other* space along their line (which should in theory reduce the number of attackers, you would think) it's actually 3:1 odds along the front line, as the rest of the troops rotate into the empty slot, since their enemies clearly have a better understanding of "tactics".

Read knight... They add +2 to AC on parry. It is in the MM. Knights can normally get a 20 AC once per round (they wear full-plate so they have a base of 18), because they had half cover that is 22 1/round as a reaction. He is wrong on the 23. He might be confusing the roll because he needed a 23 to hit with parry.

also, there is a party of 6 bunch up at this door, remember that. if 1 guy is being grappled INSIDE THE DOORWAY then it is impossible for the enemies to move through that square since all other squares beyond are occupied by the player characters. meaning no attacks can possibly be put on the player characters since the only guy in melee range is being grappled. the "congaline" is not possible in that situation.

They would never have been able to do anything if the players didn't bottleneck themselves, end of story. If they actually bottlenecked the enemy, one enemy would have been grappled and the others couldnt have passed the doorway, this has been stated. or they could have used the way that worked with 4 people and bum rushed the room to win. Which with 6 players would have slaughtered the enemy group.

Don't use "close to AC as tiamat!" as an argument. Any character with full-plate and a shield can get a 20AC with base items. This isnt even including the multitudes of magical items that can give a character obscenely high AC. These knights didnt even have a shield. it was full-plate same stats as given in the MM. Wizards can get over a 30 AC if they wanted. ZOMG ITS WAY HIGHER THAN TIAMAT!!! yea, it is.


Having read through this thread and catching up, just wanted to ask one question .. it seems to have gotten ignored after being mentioned initially.

Opportunity attacks?

When the guards moved up and retreated, did the monk get his OA on one of them / round ?
(if he still missed, well, sucks to be him ... sounds like bad luck, not bad tactics to me .. )

If he wasn't given the OA, then that may be 1 thing to ding the DM on ... but other than that, from my little XP with 5e, doesn't sound like anything terribly horrid one way or the other .. just sounds like (mostly) bad luck on Party side.

He did get reactions on them. However he actually chose not to take any because he said "they will just parry them".... he didnt take into account that when a knight uses his reaction, he doesn't gain the ability to use it again until the beginning of his next turn. So if he landed the reactions then the knight would be open to attack when it reached the monks turn. But the knights never moved in the first place.... It was the guards he was getting reactions on when he was saying that. People tried to explain that but i dont think he got it.

[GiantOctopodes]

Read knight... They add +2 to AC on parry. It is in the MM. Knights can normally get a 20 AC once per round (they wear full-plate so they have a base of 18), because they had half cover that is 22 1/round as a reaction. He is wrong on the 23. He might be confusing the roll because he needed a 23 to hit with parry.

also, there is a party of 6 bunch up at this door, remember that. if 1 guy is being grappled INSIDE THE DOORWAY then it is impossible for the enemies to move through that square since all other squares beyond are occupied by the player characters. meaning no attacks can possibly be put on the player characters since the only guy in melee range is being grappled. the "congaline" is not possible in that situation.

They would never have been able to do anything if the players didn't bottleneck themselves, end of story. If they actually bottlenecked the enemy, one enemy would have been grappled and the others couldnt have passed the doorway, this has been stated. or they could have used the way that worked with 4 people and bum rushed the room to win. Which with 6 players would have slaughtered the enemy group.

Don't use "close to AC as tiamat!" as an argument. Any character with full-plate and a shield can get a 20AC with base items. This isnt even including the multitudes of magical items that can give a character obscenely high AC. These knights didnt even have a shield. it was full-plate same stats as given in the MM. Wizards can get over a 30 AC if they wanted. ZOMG ITS WAY HIGHER THAN TIAMAT!!! yea, it is.

Working backwards-
1) How exactly do you propose a Wizard gets over 30 AC? Please, I'd love to hear it.
2) An attack hits if it equals or exceeds the AC, meaning he should have needed a *22* to hit on a parry, not a 23, and that's even accounting for the incorrectly used half cover rules.
3) Bottlenecking does not work the way you think it does. Being in the same square as a friendly counts as difficult terrain. You can *absolutely* make attacks while in difficult terrain. They could still congo line into the doorway, despite the friendly occupying it, and then attack while in that same space along with their friendly. There is nothing in the rules preventing this, just as there is nothing in the rules preventing what they did in this combat. In fact, since the only actual limitation on being in a friendly's space is that you can't end your turn there, it would seem to promote precisely this sort of behavior. The *only* difference is now the enemies would have 3 targets to choose from, instead of one, and as 20 AC is pretty much guaranteed to be the highest in the party, it is disadvantageous to do so, as those attacks will have an easier time connecting.
4) The players *weren't* bottlenecked. As stated, you can freely move through friendly spaces. If the people in the back stood there stupidly while he was getting hammered and did nothing, that's on them, not on him. They could just as easily do *exactly* what the enemy was doing, trading into the space between the knights or even moving further depending on their movement speed. I think it bears repeating- the *only* thing that actually prevents movement into a square is an enemy already occupying it.

[Bellberith]

Working backwards-
1) How exactly do you propose a Wizard gets over 30 AC? Please, I'd love to hear it.
2) An attack hits if it equals or exceeds the AC, meaning he should have needed a *22* to hit on a parry, not a 23, and that's even accounting for the incorrectly used half cover rules.
3) Bottlenecking does not work the way you think it does. Being in the same square as a friendly counts as difficult terrain. You can *absolutely* make attacks while in difficult terrain. They could still congo line into the doorway, despite the friendly occupying it, and then attack while in that same space along with their friendly. There is nothing in the rules preventing this, just as there is nothing in the rules preventing what they did in this combat. In fact, since the only actual limitation on being in a friendly's space is that you can't end your turn there, it would seem to promote precisely this sort of behavior. The *only* difference is now the enemies would have 3 targets to choose from, instead of one, and as 20 AC is pretty much guaranteed to be the highest in the party, it is disadvantageous to do so, as those attacks will have an easier time connecting.
4) The players *weren't* bottlenecked. As stated, you can freely move through friendly spaces. If the people in the back stood there stupidly while he was getting hammered and did nothing, that's on them, not on him. They could just as easily do *exactly* what the enemy was doing, trading into the space between the knights or even moving further depending on their movement speed. I think it bears repeating- the *only* thing that actually prevents movement into a square is an enemy already occupying it.

1:It is easy. take 3 levels in fighter, now wear yourself some +3 full-plate (and defense style). that is 22 AC, now get a +3 shield. that is 27 AC. And finally, put on any of the AC increasing items in the DMG. lets say staff of power for fun and cool effect. Wizard now has a base of 29 AC. Now he concentrates on haste for a 31AC and uses shield as a reaction for 36AC

There are other ways to do this, but this is a very simple way. So now that level 17 wizard / 3 fighter is a melee/magical hero. Don't forget 9th level spells like foresight that give all enemies disadvantage when they attack him.

2: yep, but he hit the ones he was supposed to hit, so not a problem.

3: you cant end your turn inside a friendly square. otherwise you would have 9 guys in a 5ft square and if that was the case there is no way they could swing their weapons properly. so, yes, bottlenecking works exactly how i think it does. When you have 3 people attacking 1 guy with his team behind him, they are bottlenecked, when it is the inverse, you are bottlenecked. When 1 guy is grappled in a square if effectively eliminates the "congo line" since he cannot move. And i also dont think you can attack while you are inside an allies square... otherwise there is no such thing as "bottleneck" in D&D 5.0..... because of the way move/attack works. And if you can attack, well read the previous sentence. No such thing at bottleneck in the first place in that case unless there are over 50+ enemies and it isnt possible for them to move in/out with enough speed.

4: they weren't doing it. and as stated before they had overall poor tactics in that first fight. So all of this proved my point. The fight was not impossible or "too hard" seeing as how it was completed with ease afterwards when they rushed it. if someone is looking for their character to win all fights with ease and never come close to dying then they need to go play hello kitty adventure time on casual mode.

[1337 b4k4]

NPCs with *real* tactics would include things like flipping over tables to make *actual* cover, having two or three knights hold the doorway while the guards pepper them with crossbow shots, or having a pot of oil above the door which they tip over then ignite, creating an environmental hazard as they continue to pepper away from behind cover with their ranged weaponry.

To be fair, this should apply equally to the PCs. Standing in a bottleneck is a bad place to be in a fight and while there are some examples of this in fiction and literature, either A) the hero always dies ("fly you fools!") or B) the hero succeeds because the enemies are afraid to take them on (like say Zhang Fei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Fei#Battle_of_Changban)). Baring the occasional rare super character (say River Tam) I can't think of many characters who stand in a bottle neck to take on multiple coordinated attackers and live, even in fiction. Regardless of whether or not the "conga line" is particularly realistic, it is realistic that one person standing literally in a doorway facing off against 8+ attackers isn't long for this world without serious cover or overwhelming displays of force.

[Vogonjeltz]

Right, which is why you'd have to time it with your party members to all rush in. Of course, my personal solution would have been a tactical retreat and then burn the building down, assuming that was possible.

Yeah, I would probably back up and use ranged weaponry first, or AoE attacks (Thunderwave, sleep, etcetera)


Has anyone else read this thread and been left with a feeling of gladness that they aren't in that group?
The guy literally placed his character in harm's way so they could safely stay out of reach behind him and made the ultimate sacrifice on their behalf. In return they openly laugh at him and mock his poor decision which was made for their benefit.
I'd be pretty annoyed too.

Absolutely as stated, the rest of the team sounds like they did nothing at all.

[GiantOctopodes]

1:It is easy. take 3 levels in fighter, now wear yourself some +3 full-plate (and defense style). that is 22 AC, now get a +3 shield. that is 27 AC. And finally, put on any of the AC increasing items in the DMG. lets say staff of power for fun and cool effect. Wizard now has a base of 29 AC. Now he concentrates on haste for a 31AC and uses shield as a reaction for 36AC

There are other ways to do this, but this is a very simple way. So now that level 17 wizard / 3 fighter is a melee/magical hero. Don't forget 9th level spells like foresight that give all enemies disadvantage when they attack him.

2: yep, but he hit the ones he was supposed to hit, so not a problem.

3: you cant end your turn inside a friendly square. otherwise you would have 9 guys in a 5ft square and if that was the case there is no way they could swing their weapons properly. so, yes, bottlenecking works exactly how i think it does. When you have 3 people attacking 1 guy with his team behind him, they are bottlenecked, when it is the inverse, you are bottlenecked. When 1 guy is grappled in a square if effectively eliminates the "congo line" since he cannot move. And i also dont think you can attack while you are inside an allies square... otherwise there is no such thing as "bottleneck" in D&D 5.0..... because of the way move/attack works. And if you can attack, well read the previous sentence. No such thing at bottleneck in the first place in that case unless there are over 50+ enemies and it isnt possible for them to move in/out with enough speed.

4: they weren't doing it. and as stated before they had overall poor tactics in that first fight. So all of this proved my point. The fight was not impossible or "too hard" seeing as how it was completed with ease afterwards when they rushed it. if someone is looking for their character to win all fights with ease and never come close to dying then they need to go play hello kitty adventure time on casual mode.

Oh sure, "easy", just multiclass (an optional rule) to gain more proficiencies than a wizard actually has, gain a higher value of magical items than allowed based on expected wealth by level, gain still more magical items beyond that, and burn through a 1 round effect, using a spell slot. Simple. /sarcasm I encourage you to let me know once you've *seen* such an AC in play, much less had one. I guarantee you, you will never see that AC actually used in gameplay, unless it's a one off.

You can attack at any point during your move. You don't need to end your turn in a square to attack during it. And exactly the image you say is absurd, 9 guys in a 5' square at the same time, unable to swing their weapons properly? That's exactly what happened here, since all turns happen *at the same time*. And I agree, that given the RAW there is no such thing as a bottleneck in D&D, because the congo line is legal, and as a result, a 15' corridor is easier to hold than a 5' corridor, since you only get one reaction per turn.

Also, I never said they didn't use poor tactics, just that the "tactics" used by the enemies were actually abuses of the rules. I never said it was "too hard" either- as I stated before, the correct thing to do would be to kill the guards while the casters use heat metal to burn down the knights without ever having to hit them with a single roll. The fight itself is trivially easy, and sure, the tactics were poor, but him standing in the door was *not* part of those poor tactics. Yes, under normal tactical considerations standing one step back and having it a 3v1 instead of 1v3 would be better, but the way the fight was run in your setup, it would be 9v1 regardless, so that makes that decision a moot point.

Enough complaining about the issue, here's how I would fix it:



Moving Around Other Creatures: You can move through a nonhostile ceature's space. Moving through another creature's space, or through a space occupied by an ally earlier in the same turn, counts as difficult terrain. In contrast, you can move through a hostile's space only if that creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Whether the creature is a friend or enemy, all attack rolls made by you while in its space have disadvantage, and you cannot willingly end your move in its space.

I think that should solve the issue nicely. It would only ever come up in a grid based system, as while running Theater of the Mind, the statement that "the guards take turns rushing down the narrow hallway at you, striking at you before returning to their place in the line" would be met with mockery and ridicule anyway, but it does make things like 6 people rushing across a 5' wide bridge at the same time impossible, and cut down on other ludicrous artifacts of a turn based combat system.

The only potential negative I see is that you essentially halve the movement speed of everyone moving in ranks who wishes to maintain those ranks, and I really think I'm ok with that. It actually seems much more reasonable and realistic from that standpoint as well.

[Selkirk]

the conga line presents huge issues. a steady fighter wouldn't charge into a room full of enemies and be exposed to 9 attacks. but with conga line he might as well charge into the room (things won't be worse for him but will be better for his party...it's actually worse to stand in the door than to run into the middle of the room). further, this type of 'combat' runs easy or tpk all too readily...if a spellcaster can aoe the opposing enemies it's a cakewalk. if not then it's the other thing..endless dice rolling and lame cautious play.

conga line encourages timid play and discourages daring. i guarantee the next time a party that has been conga lined comes to a door(any door) they will spend an inordinate amount of time 'investigating' and thinking 'tactically(read here timidly)'. but it isn't a problem that is easily resolved...

as person man noted earlier in thread .. this is a known issue-and i know the design team has thought it thru but...what's the fix here? is the 5e combat system genius only when in open spaces? anything cramped becomes a tremendous issue and scales encounter difficulty by multiples of at least 2. and of course multiplies the suck factor by at least 5 :D.

[Bellberith]

Oh sure, "easy", just multiclass (an optional rule) to gain more proficiencies than a wizard actually has, gain a higher value of magical items than allowed based on expected wealth by level, gain still more magical items beyond that, and burn through a 1 round effect, using a spell slot. Simple. /sarcasm I encourage you to let me know once you've *seen* such an AC in play, much less had one. I guarantee you, you will never see that AC actually used in gameplay, unless it's a one off.

You can attack at any point during your move. You don't need to end your turn in a square to attack during it. And exactly the image you say is absurd, 9 guys in a 5' square at the same time, unable to swing their weapons properly? That's exactly what happened here, since all turns happen *at the same time*. And I agree, that given the RAW there is no such thing as a bottleneck in D&D, because the congo line is legal, and as a result, a 15' corridor is easier to hold than a 5' corridor, since you only get one reaction per turn.

Also, I never said they didn't use poor tactics, just that the "tactics" used by the enemies were actually abuses of the rules. I never said it was "too hard" either- as I stated before, the correct thing to do would be to kill the guards while the casters use heat metal to burn down the knights without ever having to hit them with a single roll. The fight itself is trivially easy, and sure, the tactics were poor, but him standing in the door was *not* part of those poor tactics. Yes, under normal tactical considerations standing one step back and having it a 3v1 instead of 1v3 would be better, but the way the fight was run in your setup, it would be 9v1 regardless, so that makes that decision a moot point.

Enough complaining about the issue, here's how I would fix it:



I think that should solve the issue nicely. It would only ever come up in a grid based system, as while running Theater of the Mind, the statement that "the guards take turns rushing down the narrow hallway at you, striking at you before returning to their place in the line" would be met with mockery and ridicule anyway, but it does make things like 6 people rushing across a 5' wide bridge at the same time impossible, and cut down on other ludicrous artifacts of a turn based combat system.

The only potential negative I see is that you essentially halve the movement speed of everyone moving in ranks who wishes to maintain those ranks, and I really think I'm ok with that. It actually seems much more reasonable and realistic from that standpoint as well.

I never said how before, i said it was possible and you said you would love to hear it. And some of the strongest characters in this edition are made possible via multiclassing.

Also, the wish spell can create 25,000gp / day for the wizard....... If you wanna take the risk.

Other ways include high con / barb level dip. Monks with items, fighters with items, ect. Players can still get 28-30 AC with 0 magic items through multiclassing also. And even without multiclassing a wizards AC can still get higher than "tiamat"

And as long as you agree different tactics could have been used to a much greater effect and even trivialize the supposed "impossible" fight from the OPs perspective. Then there is no need to even have a conversation.

[rlc]

If they try to leave use your opportunity attack to grapple them, preventing the enemy from vacating the location.


Or as previously indicated use the AoO to grapple them and then murder them on your turn.



Pretty sure you can't do that.

[Bellberith]

Pretty sure you can't do that.

You can if you readied the action to grapple. But otherwise you are right, you can't grapple as a reaction.

[silveralen]

Reading through it: We have a touchy and very bad DM who uses cheesy and often very questionable tactics and possibly fudges things beyond that (the player seemed pretty convinced a 23 missed). He then mocks and laughs at players for failing to abuse the rules as well as him, despite at least one aspect (cover) being completely misused making it impossible for the players to correctly react to the situation, and the entire thing still dependent on an incredible amount of "luck", which always raises eyebrows when it heavily favors the DM.

In short, we have someone who should never be running a table, or to be frank allowed at a table, ruining the game for people. OP, find a new group, maybe with some people actually worth playing with. If you want help finding one you can actually look around the forums, and online games are fairly common as well.

[Bellberith]

Reading through it: We have a touchy and very bad DM who uses cheesy and often very questionable tactics and possibly fudges things beyond that (the player seemed pretty convinced a 23 missed). He then mocks and laughs at players for failing to abuse the rules as well as him, despite at least one aspect (cover) being completely misused making it impossible for the players to correctly react to the situation, and the entire thing still dependent on an incredible amount of "luck", which always raises eyebrows when it heavily favors the DM.

In short, we have someone who should never be running a table, or to be frank allowed at a table, ruining the game for people. OP, find a new group, maybe with some people actually worth playing with. If you want help finding one you can actually look around the forums, and online games are fairly common as well.

It is rather sad you came out of reading this with that interpretation. Considering if you read through this thread you would know there was multiple methods they could have used to win the fight.

However you can say what you want from the perspective of someone who wasn't actually there (i was). I can tell you for a fact that is was nowhere even close to how bad you try to make it sound. Actually, the other 7 or so people that were there had fun and were happy with the fight.

Edit: I wasn't a player or the DM btw. I was just sitting in on the session. But i have been playing D&D for roughly 8 years, which isnt quite as long as some other folks but long enough to know if someone is being cheap or not.

When everyone is happy and 1 guy is complaining, that should also "raise some eyebrows" as to whether or not it is actually a problem.

[silveralen]

It is rather sad you came out of reading this with that interpretation. Considering if you read through this thread you would know there was multiple methods they could have used to win the fight.

However you can say what you want from the perspective of someone who wasn't actually there (i was). I can tell you for a fact that is was nowhere even close to how bad you try to make it sound. Actually, the other 7 or so people that were there had fun and were happy with the fight.

Edit: I wasn't a player or the DM btw. I was just sitting in on the session. But i have been playing D&D for roughly 8 years, which isnt quite as long as some other folks but long enough to know if someone is being cheap or not.

When everyone is happy and 1 guy is complaining, that should also "raise some eyebrows" as to whether or not it is actually a problem.

Sure. Most of which involved reading the DM's mind, applying game logic over real world logic and thus devaluing the roleplay aspect, or seeing into the future to know the DM would get great rolls. It wasn't a good encounter, it was badly made. System mastery by lvl 4 is not a reasonable basis for making encounters. The fact the party with primarily casters succeeded also isn't surprising considering the artificially absurd ACs of the enemies were part of what caused the problem, the monk flurried because he probably felt he ahd no other way of making an impact. The fact the DM apparently didn't even convey what was happening well enough for the player to understand doesn't speak highly either, insuring the players understand the situation is again an important part of the game.

To be honest, I have more, I just figured this was enough to make my point.

When the one player is the one who got killed by a scummy tactic, it isn't surprising he is the one who wasn't enjoying himself and 8 years should be long enough to know that any player not enjoying the game is a problem.

[Mellack]

I have to disagree with that last point some. If you have 7 people enjoying themselves and 1 grumbling, there is a problem, but it is with the one person. Perhaps it is not a game style they enjoy, or the group is not for them. If I love cinematic roleplay when the rest want intricate tactical play, I am the one who is out and should not expect the rest to conform for me. Same if the rest want the cinematic and only a single player wants the tactical, they will be disappointed and would be best served by finding another game. You cannot always please everyone.

[Bellberith]

I have to disagree with that last point some. If you have 7 people enjoying themselves and 1 grumbling, there is a problem, but it is with the one person. Perhaps it is not a game style they enjoy, or the group is not for them. If I love cinematic roleplay when the rest want intricate tactical play, I am the one who is out and should not expect the rest to conform for me. Same if the rest want the cinematic and only a single player wants the tactical, they will be disappointed and would be best served by finding another game. You cannot always please everyone.

yes, this for sure.

[silveralen]

I have to disagree with that last point some. If you have 7 people enjoying themselves and 1 grumbling, there is a problem, but it is with the one person. Perhaps it is not a game style they enjoy, or the group is not for them. If I love cinematic roleplay when the rest want intricate tactical play, I am the one who is out and should not expect the rest to conform for me. Same if the rest want the cinematic and only a single player wants the tactical, they will be disappointed and would be best served by finding another game. You cannot always please everyone.

If that one person was the direct recipient of DM bull which got his character killed, while that same character actually shielded the group from the idiocy to some degree, it's a little different than your examples.

[MadBear]

I'm a little late to the party, but this entire encounter stinks of meta-gaming.

Sure it's something the players could have done as well, but the entire move-attack-move is just stupid and not realistic. It breaks immersion and my table would never let this tactic stand (from player or DM). I mean, congratulations, you found a way to break the rules of the game to gain an advantage....... way to win d&d (oops I mean use *good* tactics).

Also, I'll point out that laughing at someone is different from laughing with someone. It feels odd having to say this on a forum, since it's something I don't even need to regularly tell my high school students. When my character heroically leaps out a window to grapple the demon flying in the air and finds out that its actually an illusion and I plummet to my death, my table and I all have a good laugh. If my character died because the DM used an incredibly cheesy tactic and I was then laughed at for not understanding it, that's just people being jerks.

@OP: I'd find a better group that fits the way you play better if possible. There were definitely rules that were used incorrectly in the situation, and rules that were used in a gamey cheesy way.

[Bellberith]

I'm a little late to the party, but this entire encounter stinks of meta-gaming.

Sure it's something the players could have done as well, but the entire move-attack-move is just stupid and not realistic. It breaks immersion and my table would never let this tactic stand (from player or DM). I mean, congratulations, you found a way to break the rules of the game to gain an advantage....... way to win d&d (oops I mean use *good* tactics).

Also, I'll point out that laughing at someone is different from laughing with someone. It feels odd having to say this on a forum, since it's something I don't even need to regularly tell my high school students. When my character heroically leaps out a window to grapple the demon flying in the air and finds out that its actually an illusion and I plummet to my death, my table and I all have a good laugh. If my character died because the DM used an incredibly cheesy tactic and I was then laughed at for not understanding it, that's just people being jerks.

@OP: I'd find a better group that fits the way you play better if possible. There were definitely rules that were used incorrectly in the situation, and rules that were used in a gamey cheesy way.

No rules were used incorrectly, aside from the fact that you actually CAN attack while inside an allies square. Which worked out to their benefit to begin with. As you weren't actually there and as pointed out before, the OP did not give a remotely accurate telling of the events that took place...... How could you possibly know if rules were used incorrectly? (btw to something that was mentioned before that i don't think got a response to... Hitting someone partly around a corner counts as half-cover in every table i have ever been to.)

And it IS his fault for sitting there and getting wrecked.... These events took place over the course of a good 6 or so rounds as his hp was being whittled away because he had an 18AC (the characters in that game are a bit stronger than normal with a 38 point-buy). So he had plenty of time to figure out that it was not going his way and he might want to move.

When something like that happens, you cannot blame the game for being "hard" or the DM for using a "cheezy tactic" he had plenty of time to react and change what he was doing before he got put down.

[silveralen]

No rules were used incorrectly, aside from the fact that you actually CAN attack while inside an allies square. Which worked out to their benefit to begin with. As you weren't actually there and as pointed out before, the OP did not give a remotely accurate telling of the events that took place...... How could you possibly know if rules were used incorrectly? (btw to something that was mentioned before that i don't think got a response to... Hitting someone partly around a corner counts as half-cover in every table i have ever been to.)

And it IS his fault for sitting there and getting wrecked.... These events took place over the course of a good 6 or so rounds as his hp was being whittled away because he had an 18AC (the characters in that game are a bit stronger than normal with a 38 point-buy). So he had plenty of time to figure out that it was not going his way and he might want to move.

When something like that happens, you cannot blame the game for being "hard" or the DM for using a "cheezy tactic" he had plenty of time to react and change what he was doing before he got put down.

I'm actually trying to figure out how a level monk using flurry of blows for 6 rounds didn't manage to kill off at least the knights. Much less what the rest of the party was doing.

So what should he have done? Run away to hide behind the casters? Charged into the room so he could be surrounded and chopped up? Not a lot of options to speak of. Dodge merely would delay the inevitable since these knights apparently wouldn't die and it's not like he could have even dodged every round before running out of ki, he'd basically just be dodging then twiddling his tumbs uselessly.

I wasn't there, but you were. Why didn't the "hold action to grapple them" idea get brought up in combat? Or any of the other "superior" tactics? You help players, especially in new editions when they aren't familiar with every detail of the rules, if this was so obvious to everyone else, someone should have pointed it out.

Instead... you acted like jerks and belittled a fellow player, admitting to laughing at him because your DM uses the most idiotically absurd tactics and cheeses the hell out of NPCs AC so that conventional attacks become hellishly ineffective. Bad DM, bad bystanders, bad encounter, bad session, bad everything. I hope he finds a new group with better people.

[GiantOctopodes]

No rules were used incorrectly, aside from the fact that you actually CAN attack while inside an allies square. Which worked out to their benefit to begin with. As you weren't actually there and as pointed out before, the OP did not give a remotely accurate telling of the events that took place...... How could you possibly know if rules were used incorrectly? (btw to something that was mentioned before that i don't think got a response to... Hitting someone partly around a corner counts as half-cover in every table i have ever been to.)

And it IS his fault for sitting there and getting wrecked.... These events took place over the course of a good 6 or so rounds as his hp was being whittled away because he had an 18AC (the characters in that game are a bit stronger than normal with a 38 point-buy). So he had plenty of time to figure out that it was not going his way and he might want to move.

When something like that happens, you cannot blame the game for being "hard" or the DM for using a "cheezy tactic" he had plenty of time to react and change what he was doing before he got put down.

I'll just address the half cover bit- if it were actually a corner, I would agree with you. However, you specified he was in the door, not behind it. In fact, that was the whole reason for the ridicule was because he didn't just step back behind it. In a "hard" grid system, the door would occupy the transition between two squares, and be on the bottom of one square, or the top of the other. In such a setup, he would be forced to either stand in the room, on that side of the door (where there would obviously be no cover of any kind) or behind the door completely (where you specifically made fun of him for not standing). As such, there remain two other possibilities: 1) There was actually a 5' wide corridor in which he was standing, which hadn't previously been specified, which opened up on either side to the 15' wide environments you described. As that would not make sense from an architectural standpoint and was not specified despite being vastly relevant tactical data, I will do you the favor of assuming that is not the case. 2) You were using a "soft" grid system, and he occupied half the grid square in front of the door, and half the grid square behind it, straddling the door itself, as had been previously described.

If that is indeed the case, then at that point the wall in question, both from a narrative perspective and from the standpoint of grid based combat, does not in any way obstruct his ability to attack the person in question. Nor would it obstruct their ability to attack him. Look at the requirements for half cover- obstructing half or more of the creature's body. Now go stand in a doorway, give yourself up to 2 1/2 feet in front of it, and have someone against the wall on either side. Tell me how much of them is blocked.

tl;dr: It would qualify as half cover if and only if he had been standing in the place you derided him for not standing in.

Edit:


Instead... you acted like jerks and belittled a fellow player, admitting to laughing at him because your DM uses the most idiotically absurd tactics and cheeses the hell out of NPCs AC so that conventional attacks become hellishly ineffective. Bad DM, bad bystanders, bad encounter, bad session, bad everything. I hope he finds a new group with better people.

Agreed. Though I'm personally not surprised at all he didn't hit the knights- he needed a 16+, assuming a Dex of +4, and would only be dealing 8ish damage on a hit. At 52 HP, assuming a flurry of blows every round, it would take roughly 9 rounds to kill a single knight. Put another way, assuming ability bonuses of +4, at that AC it would take 26 attacks from level 4 characters to take down a single Knight. Sure, had the other players being doing *anything* productive other than standing there mocking him, they still could have gotten it done- he does after all only get a single reaction per round, but since there was such a low base chance to hit in the first place, even with flurry of blows the monk could never hope to burn past that on his own.

Do you by chance have any thoughts on my proposed house rule to eliminate this particular brand of cheese?

[Kira_the_5th]

I think I may have figured out where the problem lies. Well, besides the terribad DMing involved in using these Goblin Conga Line shenanigans I've heard about. Bad DMing was certainly involved here, but it wasn't just a matter of cheap tactics.

We're told that the party was made up of six Level 4 characters. Going by encounter building rules, that means each of them would contribute 250 XP to the difficulty budget of the encounter. That puts the XP total for an "average" encounter at 1500 XP. If we choose to believe Bellberith's account of the enemies, (two knights, four guards, and a bandit captain) that puts us at about 1950 XP. A tricky encounter, but not an unassailable one. That is, until we factor in multipliers.

Seven opponents adds a 2.5x multiplier to the encounter, raising the total XP from a tough-but-doable 1950 to a much more deadly 4875 XP. For reference, the total for a "deadly" encounter for this party of six was 3000 XP. At that CR, it's all but guaranteed that someone was going to die; in this case, the guy preventing all those enemies from swarming his friends.

If we choose to believe Rusty on the specifics of the encounter, it just gets worse. The two extra knights he mentioned bring another 1400 XP to the party, as well as extra numbers, bringing the XP total up to 7500. However, given the difficulty of the more conservative estimate, this is pretty much irrelevant. After all, making the encounter more difficult doesn't change anything for the better.

Now, I'm not saying that terrible, terrible metagame-y tactics weren't used. It's just that most of the argument has been about the tactics, and less about how the encounter was pretty skewed against the PCs to begin with.

Now, I should mention that I'm not the best at math, and I've only had about a week to get acquainted with 5E as a system. Even so, it seems a bit of a place to start.

[silveralen]

Oh yeah, the encounter itself wasn't very well balanced from the start. I'm willing to forgive that, because encounters often come out tougher then intended.

It's when you start abusing tactics during a rough fight where the part is struggling then blame the players that you go from a DM who made a mistake to a bad DM.

[Oncoming Storm]

Bellberith, give it a rest. This was a bad encounter, start to finish, and DOES NOT accord with 5e's design philosophy in the slightest. You highlight the fact that 5e is different from 3.5 (no more 'god characters') but fail to take into consideration the fact that 5e encourages role-playing (vs. Roll-playing.) Thus, this encounter (and the way it was handled) sucked.

Issues I see:

1. Misapplication of cover rules. Relatively minor issue taken up to 11 by the fact that the enemies has incredibly high AC to begin with.
2. Use of a completely metagamey tactic which does not accord with any kind of real-world interpretation (seriously, try and visualize it, explain to me how this conga line would work in any 'real' combat situation.
3. Apparently, failure to explain tactics to an inexperienced player. If it was so obvious that 'taking a step back' would cut the # of attacks substantially, SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT. Even if you play out everything 'in character' (it does not sound like you do) it's not metagaming to tell another party member that the enemies will have a harder time getting at you if you step back. That one is on the party, and after a certain point, the DM.
4. Laughing at a player for making a rules mistake, getting beaten by a cheesy tactic, and dying. While the rest of the party (apparently) F****d about in the room behind him. Was the druid/cleric healing him? were they shooting past him? (even with cover) Did the druid wildshape into a gecko in order to get into a flanking position? Did the wizard Web the area to make it (much) easier to win the encounter? From what you and he have said, the party essentially abandoned him to fight a deadly++ encounter on his own for 6 rounds. Then laughed when he lost (and died.)
Seriously, after about two-three rounds of that, my character would likely be trying to cut a plea-bargain with the knights in exchange for their own freedom. OOC, I'd be looking for a new group.

I could say more, but I won't. The fact that a group of (again, apparently) *******s got their jollies watching someone else's character get wrecked/picking on the player does not automatically make the one player wrong. Same logic could be applied to literally any bullying situation in the real world - case in point:

"Oh, well, looks like that group of kids are picking on Johnny again. Well, they look like they're having fun doing it, so it's clearly his problem."

I cannot stress enough that the mere fact that most of the people present had fun does not justify picking on the one who didn't. A more fair assessment would be to ask if any of THEM would have had fun if they were put in the exact same situation as the OP, losing their character due to DM shenanigans and cheese while the rest of the party sat around and did nothing, laughing at their stupidity.

[Bellberith]

Bellberith, give it a rest. This was a bad encounter, start to finish, and DOES NOT accord with 5e's design philosophy in the slightest. You highlight the fact that 5e is different from 3.5 (no more 'god characters') but fail to take into consideration the fact that 5e encourages role-playing (vs. Roll-playing.) Thus, this encounter (and the way it was handled) sucked.

Issues I see:

1. Misapplication of cover rules. Relatively minor issue taken up to 11 by the fact that the enemies has incredibly high AC to begin with.
2. Use of a completely metagamey tactic which does not accord with any kind of real-world interpretation (seriously, try and visualize it, explain to me how this conga line would work in any 'real' combat situation.
3. Apparently, failure to explain tactics to an inexperienced player. If it was so obvious that 'taking a step back' would cut the # of attacks substantially, SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT. Even if you play out everything 'in character' (it does not sound like you do) it's not metagaming to tell another party member that the enemies will have a harder time getting at you if you step back. That one is on the party, and after a certain point, the DM.
4. Laughing at a player for making a rules mistake, getting beaten by a cheesy tactic, and dying. While the rest of the party (apparently) F****d about in the room behind him. Was the druid/cleric healing him? were they shooting past him? (even with cover) Did the druid wildshape into a gecko in order to get into a flanking position? Did the wizard Web the area to make it (much) easier to win the encounter? From what you and he have said, the party essentially abandoned him to fight a deadly++ encounter on his own for 6 rounds. Then laughed when he lost (and died.)
Seriously, after about two-three rounds of that, my character would likely be trying to cut a plea-bargain with the knights in exchange for their own freedom. OOC, I'd be looking for a new group.

I could say more, but I won't. The fact that a group of (again, apparently) *******s got their jollies watching someone else's character get wrecked/picking on the player does not automatically make the one player wrong. Same logic could be applied to literally any bullying situation in the real world - case in point:

"Oh, well, looks like that group of kids are picking on Johnny again. Well, they look like they're having fun doing it, so it's clearly his problem."

I cannot stress enough that the mere fact that most of the people present had fun does not justify picking on the one who didn't. A more fair assessment would be to ask if any of THEM would have had fun if they were put in the exact same situation as the OP, losing their character due to DM shenanigans and cheese while the rest of the party sat around and did nothing, laughing at their stupidity.

The simple fact the encounter was completed with ease by 4 players rushing the room pretty much makes all this moot. And he was laughed at because he had a LONG time to figure out what was happening and proceeded to do nothing about it.

It is like stepping into a room with the walls closing in on you, figuring out the walls are closing in on you faster than you can make it to the other end of the room, but continue to run there even though you can get out to safety by going back.

Nobody was picking on this guy. But are you seriously telling me you have never had a party member do something that ended badly or not do something that ended badly that made you laugh? And if someone can't handle getting laughed at for some mistakes then maybe they should grow some thicker skin. And never go online for starters....

Edit: To the guy who said something about 6 flurry of blows and guys not dead.... He missed most of his attacks by attacking the knights instead of the guards or captain. And he used flurry 4 times, not 6.

[rlc]

So what you're saying is that everybody in the party made bad decisions.

[Bellberith]

So what you're saying is that everybody in the party made bad decisions.

For that encounter the way they went about it the first time didn't work. So yes..... Every encounter should be thought out and approached in different ways. This particular one had 3 or 4 clear ways to destroy it with ease. And other ways to do it with more trouble. But like all fights, certain things will not win you the fight.

Before anyone says "OH DON'T EXPECT YOUR PLAYERS TO THINK THE WAY YOU WANT THEM TO, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT!!!!" well, they CAN do anything they want. Let's use tiamat as an example since she has already been brought up a few times.... Just because you WANT to rush tiamat, does not mean you SHOULD rush tiamat. As it would likely end in your death. The way you play needs to suit the situation you are in or change on the fly if that isn't working. If you don't/won't/can't do that, then expect to die when you decide not to run from a rampaging dragon.

[silveralen]

For that encounter the way they went about it the first time didn't work. So yes..... Every encounter should be thought out and approached in different ways. This particular one had 3 or 4 clear ways to destroy it with ease. And other ways to do it with more trouble. But like all fights, certain things will not win you the fight..

The problem is, the only thing he could've done to really make a contribution in this fight is exactly what he did. That or not play monk. Everything about the encounter guaranteed the character's death, or at least his uselessness.

That's crap design, though at least part of it was again the DM and you having no idea how cover works. Also the fact I'm betting dollars to donuts the DM fudged things further, he did say the 23 missed and it isn't like we have any reason to assume the DM plays fair and is above blatant cheating. Anyone who congas a player to death obviously doesn't care about that.

Also, how did backing up five feet help? You can conga down and back a single person hallway. The only tactic he had was a held action grapple, and that's something a lot of people may not even be aware they can do. Do you share a single PHB? Because that requires a lot of rules familiarity.


The simple fact the encounter was completed with ease by 4 players rushing the room pretty much makes all this moot. And he was laughed at because he had a LONG time to figure out what was happening and proceeded to do nothing about it.

It is like stepping into a room with the walls closing in on you, figuring out the walls are closing in on you faster than you can make it to the other end of the room, but continue to run there even though you can get out to safety by going back.

Nobody was picking on this guy. But are you seriously telling me you have never had a party member do something that ended badly or not do something that ended badly that made you laugh? And if someone can't handle getting laughed at for some mistakes then maybe they should grow some thicker skin. And never go online for starters....

Edit: To the guy who said something about 6 flurry of blows and guys not dead.... He missed most of his attacks by attacking the knights instead of the guards or captain. And he used flurry 4 times, not 6.

It was completed by four players, but that party consisted of a page number of casters in a situation where the problem was enemies that were practically immune to normal attacks of that level and cheesy tactics making it all but impossible to hit the weaker enemies. Obviously it went better for the second party, anyone with half a brain can see why. If your DM and you didn't look at that encounter and go "wow, I'm really screwing anyone who relies on attack rolls here" you shouldn't be allowed to design encounters.

What should he have done? He had no good options because the encounter was designed for him to fail. He'd run out of ki long before he killed either knight, charging into the room would get him killed faster due to opportunity attacks, he can only dodge so long, and if he did move he could open up squishier teammates. He had no good options due to absolute **** encounter design, with ACs and tactics like that he might as well have just not been there, the only thing he could offer the group was a meatshield.

Yeah, if a character attacking a normal enemy for 6 rounds and expending resources to do so can't kill them, that is a sign of a screw up. A bad one.

You start off with "no one was picking on him" and end with "he should get thicker skin". Your own words make the blatant lie clear.

Everything you have said has made me more and more convinced it was in no way his fault, and every bit the DM's fault. Sounds like an awful table to play at, DM can't balance for crap and doesn't realize why an encounter of high AC enemies is much easier when everyone can target saving throws. Worse, he has people like you trying to defend him and convince him everything was peachy, who cares if you rendered a character all but useless for an encounter then killed him with abusive tactics? That DM won't even learn from his mistakes, and nothing will ever improve.

[Vogonjeltz]

You can if you readied the action to grapple. But otherwise you are right, you can't grapple as a reaction.

Grapple takes the place of a melee attack. What action is required to make that attack would seem immaterial.

[Bellberith]

The problem is, the only thing he could've done to really make a contribution in this fight is exactly what he did. That or not play monk. Everything about the encounter guaranteed the character's death, or at least his uselessness.

That's crap design, though at least part of it was again the DM and you having no idea how cover works. Also the fact I'm betting dollars to donuts the DM fudged things further, he did say the 23 missed and it isn't like we have any reason to assume the DM plays fair and is above blatant cheating. Anyone who congas a player to death obviously doesn't care about that.

Also, how did backing up five feet help? You can conga down and back a single person hallway. The only tactic he had was a held action grapple, and that's something a lot of people may not even be aware they can do. Do you share a single PHB? Because that requires a lot of rules familiarity.



It was completed by four players, but that party consisted of a page number of casters in a situation where the problem was enemies that were practically immune to normal attacks of that level and cheesy tactics making it all but impossible to hit the weaker enemies. Obviously it went better for the second party, anyone with half a brain can see why. If your DM and you didn't look at that encounter and go "wow, I'm really screwing anyone who relies on attack rolls here" you shouldn't be allowed to design encounters.

What should he have done? He had no good options because the encounter was designed for him to fail. He'd run out of ki long before he killed either knight, charging into the room would get him killed faster due to opportunity attacks, he can only dodge so long, and if he did move he could open up squishier teammates. He had no good options due to absolute **** encounter design, with ACs and tactics like that he might as well have just not been there, the only thing he could offer the group was a meatshield.

Yeah, if a character attacking a normal enemy for 6 rounds and expending resources to do so can't kill them, that is a sign of a screw up. A bad one.

You start off with "no one was picking on him" and end with "he should get thicker skin". Your own words make the blatant lie clear.

Everything you have said has made me more and more convinced it was in no way his fault, and every bit the DM's fault. Sounds like an awful table to play at, DM can't balance for crap and doesn't realize why an encounter of high AC enemies is much easier when everyone can target saving throws. Worse, he has people like you trying to defend him and convince him everything was peachy, who cares if you rendered a character all but useless for an encounter then killed him with abusive tactics? That DM won't even learn from his mistakes, and nothing will ever improve.

I think you fail to realize that if the party won with 4, then they could have won with 6. same party members......

Also the monk could have.... NOT STOOD IN THE DOORWAY? maybe he could have done that differently. Generally when someone sees something isnt working over 6 rounds it is time for a change of plan. Holding that door did nothing for him. Btw i hope you know you said he could have done nothing differently, then proceeded to say something he could have done differently. Logic

AND to shoot down that other point. The guards had low enough HP to be 1shot, the captains AC is a 15. The knights are the only ones with a high AC.

He could have done a lot differently and that is again proven by the fact that 4 of those 6 won the encounter. That you would suggest otherwise makes that entire post invalid. Also that "number of casters" were the same people there the last time. They couldn't run in and AoE because the monk on their team was blocking the door which in turn made the enemy bunch up and block the door.... Only AoE they had at the time was thunderwave and the druid couldn't use it without damaging the whole party. Which 1shot all the guards in the fight afterwards. I think you forgot that there was a monk in the party of 4, and after the guards were all 1shot the monk tanked 2 of the knights with dodge, they barely scratched him the whole time and get wrecked by a coordinated effort.

They all have a phb.

I said nobody was picking on him which is true. And ended it "thicker skin" because some people feel like the world is out to get them when it is really them construing it that way. Not saying this guy has it to that extreme, however he clearly felt like he was being picked on when in fact he wasn't. Do something stupid, get laughed at. Nobody cared after 10minutes. It was a bunch of friends poking fun at each other like friends do all the time.

Basically it all comes down to the fact he acted as the "meatshield" which only hindered the party to begin with. Then he complains the fight was too hard when he not only didn't have to die, but the party actually would have been better off without him doing what he did. And from me being there watching what went down, that is a fact.


Grapple takes the place of a melee attack. What action is required to make that attack would seem immaterial.

In the PhB pg 195 under grapple it says "you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple."

A reaction is not the attack action, and opportunity attack specifically says melee attack. Not special melee attack or anything of that sort. Grapple says it only replaces a melee attack during the Attack action (capitalized attack because it is that way in the book. It is a specific action that is separate from just "attack").

[silveralen]

I think you fail to realize that if the party won with 4, then they could have won with 6. same party members......

Also the monk could have.... NOT STOOD IN THE DOORWAY? maybe he could have done that differently. Generally when someone sees something isnt working over 6 rounds it is time for a change of plan. Holding that door did nothing for him.

AND to shoot down that other point. The guards had low enough HP to be 1shot, the captains AC is a 15. The knights are the only ones with a high AC.

He could have done a lot differently and that is again proven by the fact that 4 of those 6 won the encounter. That you would suggest otherwise makes that entire post invalid. Also that "number of casters" were the same people there the last time. They couldn't run in and AoE because the monk on their team was blocking the door which in turn made the enemy bunch up and block the door.... Only AoE they had at the time was thunderwave and the druid couldn't use it without damaging the whole party. Which 1shot all the guards in the fight afterwards. I think you forgot that there was a monk in the party of 4, and after the guards were all 1shot the monk tanked 2 of the knights with dodge, they barely scratched him the whole time and get wrecked by a coordinated effort.

They all have a phb.

I said nobody was picking on him which is true. And ended it "thicker skin" because some people feel like the world is out to get them when it is really them construing it that way. Not saying this guy has it to that extreme, however he clearly felt like he was being picked on when in fact he wasn't. Do something stupid, get laughed at. Nobody cared after 10minutes. It was a bunch of friends poking fun at each other like friends do all the time.

Basically it all comes down to the fact he acted as the "meatshield" which only hindered the party to begin with. Then he complains the fight was too hard when he not only didn't have to die, but the party actually would have been better off without him doing what he did. And from me being there watching what went down, that is a fact.

Oh, so the DM ran the same encounter with the same party reduced in number? And what sort of tactics did he use that time. Because I've seen this before, DM gets called out for BS encounter difficulty, reruns encounter, and suddenly the enemies react to the new tactic like brain dead lemmings instead of the hive minded warrior race they appeared as the first encounter.

Actually it's a good tactic. He lasted 6 rounds as it was, and if the DM had played fair over half those attacks would've been coming in the form of crossbows and longbows, allowing him to use deflect missile. Meanwhile, his party could have been tossing spells or arrows in.

If they had such low AC and HP, I am curious how none of them died to his attack of opportunity as they moved away from him. Surely he'd have killed at least 1-2 over the course of six rounds? Or did no one mention such things existed.

You can move through a fellow player's space, nothing prevented them from running in through the center area and past the monk, since that center area was always kept open. Wow. So much failure all around, and you blame one guy? Of course, it doesn't explain how he actually died either, no AoE attacks and above average stats.... sounds like no one even tried to save him.

Again, that's exactly what the other monk did by distracting the knights later. The party was just to stupid to rush past the monk in the first encounter, because apparently the DM is rules savvy enough to know about the conga of doom but hasn't read the PHB closely enough to see running through a friendly character's space is 100% fine. In fact, given that he wasn't impeding his team's movement and the fact the DM gives cover saves for that positioning, the monk was actually in the perfect spot to distract the knights while his team went and cleared out the others.

What a joke.

If we go by realism, holding the passage was a good idea. He can tank the knights for a while, his team picks off the weaker enemies, and the monk can tank well due to high AC, deflect missiles, and only being attack in melee by three at a time.

If we go by metagaming, he was in a position to occupy two knights, who didn't have particularly good odds of hitting him thanks to the cover, while his team could rush past and destroy the weaker ones just as they did in the second encounter.

The only thing that screwed it up is the DM. Applied letter of the law so he never had to make ranged attacks, then overruled the book (or simply didn't actually know the combat rules) so that the monk bottle necked his own team. Then blamed the player. That is someone who should never be in charge of a table, this was an unmitigated failure, his unfamiliarity with rules combined with abusive cheese tactics to get a player killed then claimed it was their fault for not fighting like he planned. What an absolute joke, I'm going to be surprised if your table stays at four players for any length of time with him in charge and you in the wings encouraging this travesty.

[Bellberith]

Oh, so the DM ran the same encounter with the same party reduced in number? And what sort of tactics did he use that time. Because I've seen this before, DM gets called out for BS encounter difficulty, reruns encounter, and suddenly the enemies react to the new tactic like brain dead lemmings instead of the hive minded warrior race they appeared as the first encounter.

Actually it's a good tactic. He lasted 6 rounds as it was, and if the DM had played fair over half those attacks would've been coming in the form of crossbows and longbows, allowing him to use deflect missile. Meanwhile, his party could have been tossing spells or arrows in.

If they had such low AC and HP, I am curious how none of them died to his attack of opportunity as they moved away from him. Surely he'd have killed at least 1-2 over the course of six rounds? Or did no one mention such things existed.

You can move through a fellow player's space, nothing prevented them from running in through the center area and past the monk, since that center area was always kept open. Wow. So much failure all around, and you blame one guy? Of course, it doesn't explain how he actually died either, no AoE attacks and above average stats.... sounds like no one even tried to save him.

Again, that's exactly what the other monk did by distracting the knights later. The party was just to stupid to rush past the monk in the first encounter, because apparently the DM is rules savvy enough to know about the conga of doom but hasn't read the PHB closely enough to see running through a friendly character's space is 100% fine. In fact, given that he wasn't impeding his team's movement and the fact the DM gives cover saves for that positioning, the monk was actually in the perfect spot to distract the knights while his team went and cleared out the others.

What a joke.

If we go by realism, holding the passage was a good idea. He can tank the knights for a while, his team picks off the weaker enemies, and the monk can tank well due to high AC, deflect missiles, and only being attack in melee by three at a time.

If we go by metagaming, he was in a position to occupy two knights, who didn't have particularly good odds of hitting him thanks to the cover, while his team could rush past and destroy the weaker ones just as they did in the second encounter.

The only thing that screwed it up is the DM. Applied letter of the law so he never had to make ranged attacks, then overruled the book (or simply didn't actually know the combat rules) so that the monk bottle necked his own team. Then blamed the player. That is someone who should never be in charge of a table, this was an unmitigated failure, his unfamiliarity with rules combined with abusive cheese tactics to get a player killed then claimed it was their fault for not fighting like he planned. What an absolute joke, I'm going to be surprised if your table stays at four players for any length of time with him in charge and you in the wings encouraging this travesty.

I feel like as you make a new post, you forget everything that was said in previous posts.

He got the chance to make AoOs but he chose not to for some reason. So the guards werent dying. The party had 1 archer and 1 rogue/wizard that were both rolling terrible and had disadvantage on every attack for attacking through an allied square.

And the DM played the enemy party no differently, except the fact that instead of the allied party bunching up the enemies at the door (they went back after retreating, which is why the encounter started again) the druid just ran in there and used thunderwave that killed all 6 guards instantly. Then bonus action transformed into a brown bear. That is when the rest of the party ran in afterwards and it as a 4th level monk, 4th level cleric, 4th level druid (bear form), 2 rogue / 2 wizard vs 2 knights + 1 bandit captain all weakened by thunderwave.

It became a brawl inside the room from there and the party came out on top. Every single npc was the exact same as presented in the MM, the reason they had a bandit captain in a group of 2 knights / 6 guards were because they were slave traders and corrupt.

No rules were misused or broken and that is simply how it went down.

Edit: they could not rush past the monk because him being at the door made the enemy be at the door...... you cannot move through an enemy square so they couldn't get through the door. That is something else that you forgot that was stated 12 times in this thread (exaggeration, but it was said a few times at least)

[silveralen]

I feel like as you make a new post, you forget everything that was said in previous posts.

He got the chance to make AoOs but he chose not to for some reason. So the guards werent dying. The party had 1 archer and 1 rogue/wizard that were both rolling terrible and had disadvantage on every attack for attacking through an allied square.

And the DM played the enemy party no differently, except the fact that instead of the allied party bunching up the enemies at the door (they went back after retreating, which is why the encounter started again) the druid just ran in there and used thunderwave that killed all 6 guards instantly. Then bonus action transformed into a brown bear. That is when the rest of the party ran in afterwards and it as a 4th level monk, 4th level cleric, 4th level druid (bear form), 2 rogue / 2 wizard vs 2 knights + 1 bandit captain all weakened by thunderwave.

It became a brawl inside the room from there and the party came out on top. Every single npc was the exact same as presented in the MM, the reason they had a bandit captain in a group of 2 knights / 6 guards were because they were slave traders and corrupt.

No rules were misused or broken and that is simply how it went down.

Edit: they could not rush past the monk because him being at the door made the enemy be at the door...... you cannot move through an enemy square so they couldn't get through the door. That is something else that you forgot that was stated 12 times in this thread (exaggeration, but it was said a few times at least)

Did anyone mention he could make an AoO? The DM for example?

Also, could you direct me to the page where attacking through an allies square is disadvantage. Just looked through the combat chapter and it doesn't seem to be there.

The doorway wasn't blocked according to you.


Basically the fight went like this, the knights stood on both sides of the doorway and the smaller guards + captain would take their turn moving 10ft towards the door, attacking, then moving away from the door. so they were rotating with the middle of the doorway open at all times.

Middle of the door way open at all times means it looked like

KDK
--M--

Correct? Both knights had cover, so neither could be directly in front of the door.

So they could have rushed in and thunderwaved to kill a few mooks, then continued further into the room. Or even gone back into the hall. Or the other monk runs it, punches 1-2 to death, and then moves forward/back.

Except... now the door is constantly blocked by non existent enemies?

[Bellberith]

Did anyone mention he could make an AoO? The DM for example?

Also, could you direct me to the page where attacking through an allies square is disadvantage. Just looked through the combat chapter and it doesn't seem to be there.

The doorway wasn't blocked according to you.



Middle of the door way open at all times means it looked like

KDK
--M--

Correct? Both knights had cover, so neither could be directly in front of the door.

So they could have rushed in and thunderwaved to kill a few mooks, then continued further into the room. Or even gone back into the hall. Or the other monk runs it, punches 1-2 to death, and then moves forward/back.

Except... now the door is constantly blocked by non existent enemies?

Yes, the first square in the doorway was not blocked, however the druid still couldn't go in and thunderwave or else it would have hit the monk and everyone else through the open door. (every square around the first square was occupied)

The absolute best thing the monk could have done was ready an action to close the door once the druid went through, druid thunderwaves, open the door and rush then win.

There are many other things he could have done also. Saying he could have done nothing else or what he did do was the best is just false.

My bad, it was half-cover from another creature. Like i said, i was a spectator... Going back through the roll20 page nobody rolled disadvantage very much so they weren't rolling for that. But there were rolling very low and with half-cover through monk they needed minimum of 18 to hit the guards, 20 to hit the knights, and 17 to hit the captain.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Yes, the first square in the doorway was not blocked, however the druid still couldn't go in and thunderwave or else it would have hit the monk and everyone else through the open door. (every square around the first square was occupied)


Thunderwave is a directed spell, this isn't an issue. It's a little unintuitive for experienced players, but you can target the cubic aoe forward as need be. Check the start of the magic section in the PHB.

[SaibenLocke]

I have played with said DM and he is not the horrible bad guy that the OP is making him out to be. Grant it I was not there this session. However what everyone seems to missing out on is that the OP hasn't denied they claims that Bellberith is saying. Which leaves me to believe that he made they are true. Now onto the encounter itself. From what I read it is laid out like so:

------BC Bandit Captain
----G G G Guards
----G G G
-----K _ K Knights
-------D/M Doorway/ Monk OP
Rest of Party
Is that about right?

Also we don't know what lead up to this encounter. Did the party stealth their way in? Did the just open the door all casual and try and stroll in? Did they knock on it? Did they fail to Lockpick the door and make enough noise that the badguys had time to surprise the party?

Those weigh heavily on the said encounter.

I am not denying that the encounter played out badly for the OP. I am saying that better decisions could have been made. Did the DM "pick" on the OP's character? NO. He was the ONLY target. Maybe the other party wanted him to move but he didn't listen. As far as laughing at him I wasn't there and won't play the he said she said game. Other people were playing the same game and stayed to finish out the encounter.

[Bellberith]

Thunderwave is a directed spell, this isn't an issue. It's a little unintuitive for experienced players, but you can target the cubic aoe forward as need be. Check the start of the magic section in the PHB.

No it isn't, as far as i can see the range of thunderwave is Self (15 foot cube)

Page 202 under the Range section. Third paragraph it says "Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you."


I have played with said DM and he is not the horrible bad guy that the OP is making him out to be. Grant it I was not there this session. However what everyone seems to missing out on is that the OP hasn't denied they claims that Bellberith is saying. Which leaves me to believe that he made they are true. Now onto the encounter itself. From what I read it is laid out like so:

------BC Bandit Captain
----G G G Guards
----G G G
-----K _ K Knights
-------D/M Doorway/ Monk OP
Rest of Party
Is that about right?

Also we don't know what lead up to this encounter. Did the party stealth their way in? Did the just open the door all casual and try and stroll in? Did they knock on it? Did they fail to Lockpick the door and make enough noise that the badguys had time to surprise the party?

Those weigh heavily on the said encounter.

I am not denying that the encounter played out badly for the OP. I am saying that better decisions could have been made. Did the DM "pick" on the OP's character? NO. He was the ONLY target. Maybe the other party wanted him to move but he didn't listen. As far as laughing at him I wasn't there and won't play the he said she said game. Other people were playing the same game and stayed to finish out the encounter.

Pretty much, except that the BC was where the middle guard of the first row is and the back row of guards were to the sides a bit.

The wizard transmuted the lock of an iron door into wood and they kicked the door in. After they made no efforts to conceal their movements on the stone floor beforehand.

[silveralen]

Yes, the first square in the doorway was not blocked, however the druid still couldn't go in and thunderwave or else it would have hit the monk and everyone else through the open door. (every square around the first square was occupied)

The absolute best thing the monk could have done was ready an action to close the door once the druid went through, druid thunderwaves, open the door and rush then win.

There are many other things he could have done also. Saying he could have done nothing else or what he did do was the best is just false.

My bad, it was half-cover from another creature. Like i said, i was a spectator... Going back through the roll20 page nobody rolled disadvantage very much so they weren't rolling for that. But there were rolling very low and with half-cover through monk they needed minimum of 18 to hit the guards, 20 to hit the knights, and 17 to hit the captain.

How would it have hit the monk? The druid doesn't need to hit the knights, he needs to remove the mooks. So he stands between the knights, the D standing for druid rather than door now, and thunderwaves the guards, killing them, then shifts to animal and can move into one of the spots the guards died in.

GGG
KDK
--M--

That works perfectly fine, I have no idea why you are obsessed with closing the door, completely unneeded the Druid simple ignore the knights for now. Your suggestion is fairly stupid, how would the Druid circle around behind the guards if they are clustered near the door? I'm assuming that open space is one of the only ones in that area, if they are spread out more it still doesn't make much sense, you can thunder wave from any angle no reason you have to aim it back at your party just to hit both knights.

Or have the other monk rush in and punch them to death, then either stick around or rush back out. If they were really one hitable, this tactic alone can clear them out.

Okay, needing a 20 to hit as a lvl 4 monk means he was aiming at a 26 AC, so 23's were missing (you called him out on this earlier, so again you are an absolute tit and jerk). No real explanation for that AC either, unless the the DM gave them half cover for that angle which is kinda absurd. It also makes no sense how he would need a 17 or 18 to hit the guards or captain since they didn't have any cover at all when they rotated in. So no idea what sort of bafoonery that was.

Bright side, AoO from those knights are a none issue with the +5 AC, so they had no reason not to move forward. The attacks would occur in the space with cover.


No it isn't, as far as i can see the range of thunderwave is Self (15 foot cube)

Page 202 under the Range section. Third paragraph it says "Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you."

Read the section about cubes now. A cubes point of origin isn't the center of the cube, it is a point on one of the cube's faces.

So yes, thunderwave is a directed spell, and can be target forward or back, it doesn't surround the caster.

Really bang up job at this table, yell at a player when people don't even know how their own abilities work, DM is too busy with the congo to bother learning the rules as well.

[Gnomes2169]

Wait... were all of the enemies halflings/ wood elves, or all of the party members? Using the cover rules, only those two races get partial cover from a medium sized creature... and while a DM might rule that a creature standing in a doorway provides cover against ranged attacks (and houserules other instances of cover on top of that), it's not exactly 100% RAW.

Also, didn't you say you had a cleric in that party? Forgive me if I'm mistaken on that part, but I could swear that clerics have this at-will cantrip in their spell list that ignores all but total cover. The monk should in no way have been causing him trouble at the very least, and if there was a level 4 wizard in the party, then where were the "never miss ever" magic missiles? Was no one honestly attacking but the monk here?

[Bellberith]

How would it have hit the monk? The druid doesn't need to hit the knights, he needs to remove the mooks. So he stands between the knights, the D standing for druid rather than door now, and thunderwaves the guards, killing them, then shifts to animal and can move into one of the spots the guards died in.

GGG
KDK
--M--

That works perfectly fine, I have no idea why you are obsessed with closing the door, completely unneeded the Druid simple ignore the knights for now. Your suggestion is fairly stupid, how would the Druid circle around behind the guards if they are clustered near the door? I'm assuming that open space is one of the only ones in that area, if they are spread out more it still doesn't make much sense, you can thunder wave from any angle no reason you have to aim it back at your party just to hit both knights.

Or have the other monk rush in and punch them to death, then either stick around or rush back out. If they were really one hitable, this tactic alone can clear them out.

Okay, needing a 20 to hit as a lvl 4 monk means he was aiming at a 26 AC, so 23's were missing (you called him out on this earlier, so again you are an absolute tit and jerk). No real explanation for that AC either, unless the the DM gave them half cover for that angle which is kinda absurd. It also makes no sense how he would need a 17 or 18 to hit the guards or captain since they didn't have any cover at all when they rotated in. So no idea what sort of bafoonery that was.

Bright side, AoO from those knights are a none issue with the +5 AC, so they had no reason not to move forward. The attacks would occur in the space with cover.

What are you even talking about? The druid never circled around anything, and if he used thunderwave in that position it would have hit the monk and the party behind him as well. Try again bud.

You misinterpreted what i said, he needed to get a 20 because that was the AC including cover. So he needed to roll a 13. same with the other guys.... and those AC values have been said before and can be double-checked just by looking at the MM.

And also, they werent 1 hitable from the monks doing 1d4+4 damage. Guards have 11hp. On top of that it was already explained that the party as a whole didn't play it well, but the monk in the center made it worse.

Go back to the drawing board and this time try to remember everything that has been posted to avoid unnecessary responses.


Wait... were all of the enemies halflings/ wood elves, or all of the party members? Using the cover rules, only those two races get partial cover from a medium sized creature... and while a DM might rule that a creature standing in a doorway provides cover against ranged attacks (and houserules other instances of cover on top of that), it's not exactly 100% RAW.

Also, didn't you say you had a cleric in that party? Forgive me if I'm mistaken on that part, but I could swear that clerics have this at-will cantrip in their spell list that ignores all but total cover. The monk should in no way have been causing him trouble at the very least, and if there was a level 4 wizard in the party, then where were the "never miss ever" magic missiles? Was no one honestly attacking but the monk here?

This is false from what i am reading in the cover rules and the races. Quote please.

Pg 196 phb is the cover rules.

If you are talking about sacred flame he was using it. And the enemies were rolling quite high so they were either resisting or he was rolling low on damage (it was a combination of the two).

[SaibenLocke]

Wait... were all of the enemies halflings/ wood elves, or all of the party members? Using the cover rules, only those two races get partial cover from a medium sized creature... and while a DM might rule that a creature standing in a doorway provides cover against ranged attacks (and houserules other instances of cover on top of that), it's not exactly 100% RAW.

Also, didn't you say you had a cleric in that party? Forgive me if I'm mistaken on that part, but I could swear that clerics have this at-will cantrip in their spell list that ignores all but total cover. The monk should in no way have been causing him trouble at the very least, and if there was a level 4 wizard in the party, then where were the "never miss ever" magic missiles? Was no one honestly attacking but the monk here?


Huh? I think you are getting the Halflings Racial ability to hide while being behind a creature larger then themselves confused with cover. I did the same thing when I read it. Wood elves don't get that so I don't know where you are going with that.

[GiantOctopodes]

I feel like as you make a new post, you forget everything that was said in previous posts.

He got the chance to make AoOs but he chose not to for some reason. So the guards werent dying. The party had 1 archer and 1 rogue/wizard that were both rolling terrible and had disadvantage on every attack for attacking through an allied square.

And the DM played the enemy party no differently, except the fact that instead of the allied party bunching up the enemies at the door (they went back after retreating, which is why the encounter started again) the druid just ran in there and used thunderwave that killed all 6 guards instantly. Then bonus action transformed into a brown bear. That is when the rest of the party ran in afterwards and it as a 4th level monk, 4th level cleric, 4th level druid (bear form), 2 rogue / 2 wizard vs 2 knights + 1 bandit captain all weakened by thunderwave.

It became a brawl inside the room from there and the party came out on top. Every single npc was the exact same as presented in the MM, the reason they had a bandit captain in a group of 2 knights / 6 guards were because they were slave traders and corrupt.

No rules were misused or broken and that is simply how it went down.

Edit: they could not rush past the monk because him being at the door made the enemy be at the door...... you cannot move through an enemy square so they couldn't get through the door. That is something else that you forgot that was stated 12 times in this thread (exaggeration, but it was said a few times at least)


What's funny is that half cover, the rule that you keep insisting was not used incorrectly, is *exactly* what governs this situation, not disadvantage. "The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend." Yet another rule used incorrectly, or more aptly, the same one twice.

In terms of Thunderwave, you quoted the wrong part of "self": indicating that the origin point of the spell’s effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter)." AOEs tell us "Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin". And a Cube, which Thunderwave is, tells us "You select a cube’s point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face o f the cubic effect. The cube’s size is expressed as the length of each side. A cube’s point of origin is not included in the cube’s area of effect, unless you decide otherwise."

So in short, running into the empty square (which wouldn't even provoke opportunity attacks, as he has at that point not left anyone's threatened area) could either: Hit everyone beyond the initial row (everyone but the knights), hit everyone beyond the inital row *and* the knights (and himself), or of course chosen to hit *only* the knights, the monk, and the rest of his team. The rules for that type of AOE don't actually allow for him to hit the monk in that situation, unless he specifically aims the cube back at his allies.

[Gnomes2169]

Huh? I think you are getting the Halflings Racial ability to hide while being behind a creature larger then themselves confused with cover. I did the same thing when I read it. Wood elves don't get that so I don't know where you are going with that.

Hmmmm... the wood elf thing is natural phenomina, sorry. Forgot to re-check that and just associated "improved hiding capabilities" with "everything works like the lightfoot halfling currently destroying every single thing in my game." :smalltongue: But I'm pretty sure you only cover "half or more" of a creature when you are actually occupying that creature's square, not if you are standing in a door being stabbed at.

[Bellberith]

What's funny is that half cover, the rule that you keep insisting was not used incorrectly, is *exactly* what governs this situation, not disadvantage. "The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend." Yet another rule used incorrectly, or more aptly, the same one twice.

In terms of Thunderwave, you quoted the wrong part of "self": indicating that the origin point of the spell’s effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect” later in the this chapter)." AOEs tell us "Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spell’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin". And a Cube, which Thunderwave is, tells us "You select a cube’s point of origin, which lies anywhere on a face o f the cubic effect. The cube’s size is expressed as the length of each side. A cube’s point of origin is not included in the cube’s area of effect, unless you decide otherwise."

So in short, running into the empty square (which wouldn't even provoke opportunity attacks, as he has at that point not left anyone's threatened area) could either: Hit everyone beyond the initial row (everyone but the knights), hit everyone beyond the inital row *and* the knights (and himself), or of course chosen to hit *only* the knights, the monk, and the rest of his team. The rules for that type of AOE don't actually allow for him to hit the monk in that situation, unless he specifically aims the cube back at his allies.

Please read all posts, then respond. thank you. This has already been addressed.

Actually, just saw the chalkboard in the phb. None of the players or myself or the DM realized that. It was something universally missed to begin with and still missed when the encounter was completed using that spell.


Hmmmm... the wood elf thing is natural phenomina, sorry. Forgot to re-check that and just associated "improved hiding capabilities" with "everything works like the lightfoot halfling currently destroying every single thing in my game." :smalltongue: But I'm pretty sure you only cover "half or more" of a creature when you are actually occupying that creature's square, not if you are standing in a door being stabbed at.

Not just in the square, says in the cover rules that as long as the square a creature is in is between you and your target, it has half-cover.

Try having 1 person stand 5ft in front of you, and another person stand 5ft behind him. Then see if you can see that guys entire body.... i doubt it unless you attempt to bend and look around the guy to the side.

[silveralen]

What are you even talking about? The druid never circled around anything, and if he used thunderwave in that position it would have hit the monk and the party behind him as well. Try again bud.

You misinterpreted what i said, he needed to get a 20 because that was the AC including cover. So he needed to roll a 13. same with the other guys.... and those AC values have been said before and can be double-checked just by looking at the MM.

And also, they werent 1 hitable from the monks doing 1d4+4 damage. Guards have 11hp. On top of that it was already explained that the party as a whole didn't play it well, but the monk in the center made it worse.

Go back to the drawing board and this time try to remember everything that has been posted to avoid unnecessary responses.

This is false from what i am reading in the cover rules and the races. Quote please.

Pg 196 phb is the cover rules.

If you are talking about sacred flame he was using it. And the enemies were rolling quite high so they were either resisting or he was rolling low on damage (it was a combination of the two).

Read the section on cube spells, the origin is a point on one of the faces, not the center. It is directional.

He still needed more than a 23 total to hit the knights since they stayed in cover the whole time apparently.

Monks hit twice per round even without flurry, so 2d4+8 could easily drop one, and with a 13 AC it isn't even unlikely.

Half cover is a +2, which is what a creature grants, so it shouldn't have made a big difference. Of course this DM apparently treats an angle around a corner as 3/4ths cover, so he obviously isn't particularly good at this sort of thing.

You know, it sounds like this encounter went fine except for the ridiculous CR combined with low rolls for every single PC, high rolls for every single NPC, the DM using one of the most abusive and cheesy tactics in the game, and the fact the party doesn't understand how their own spells work.

In fact, it sounds like an overall cluster of failure to which the monk barely even contributed. Afterall, those knights needed a 18+ to hit him, and the guards needed a 17+, and he should've been able to deflect missiles except the DM being a cheesemonger. He wasn't in much danger, if his team had ever rolled decently they'd have won, If they'd contributed intelligently, like actually knowing how thunder wave worked, or the monk going past him into the room to punch then ducking back behind him, things would've gone fine. It's literally everyone's fault but his, he was the least stupid person at that session.



Please read all posts, then respond. thank you. This has already been addressed.

And the quote you posted proves my point..... The range of the spell is self. which by rules means that YOU MUST be the point of origin. So the point of origin in question is already selected for us. So the druid is the point of origin, and a cube of 15 feet erupts from him. Pretty simple stuff.

PG 204 PHB:

"Cube:

You select the cube's point of origin which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect."

The caster is the point of origin, which means the caster must be on one of the faces of the cube, not the center of the cube. The point of origin of a cube is not the center. I don't know how to make this more clear, you are wrong, read the frigging book.

[Bellberith]

PG 204 PHB:

"Cube:

You select the cube's point of origin which lies anywhere on a face of the cubic effect."

The caster is the point of origin, which means the caster must be on one of the faces of the cube, not the center of the cube. The point of origin of a cube is not the center. I don't know how to make this more clear, you are wrong, read the frigging book.

Calm down buster brown. No need to get emotional over a thread about a game you aren't apart of.

I had fixed my post before you posted this. I had recently seen the chalkboard in the phb. As i said this was something universally missed in the entire group and was stilled missed when the druid proceeded to kill all the guards with the spell in the next encounter.

Yes, this would have worked. But so would everything else that has been said in this forum. And the fact remains the monk did something unnecessary and this is without him knowing about this to begin with or even the fact the druid could use this spell at all.


He still needed more than a 23 total to hit the knights since they stayed in cover the whole time apparently.

Monks hit twice per round even without flurry, so 2d4+8 could easily drop one, and with a 13 AC it isn't even unlikely.

Half cover is a +2, which is what a creature grants, so it shouldn't have made a big difference. Of course this DM apparently treats an angle around a corner as 3/4ths cover, so he obviously isn't particularly good at this sort of thing.

You know, it sounds like this encounter went fine except for the ridiculous CR combined with low rolls for every single PC, high rolls for every single NPC, the DM using one of the most abusive and cheesy tactics in the game, and the fact the party doesn't understand how their own spells work.

In fact, it sounds like an overall cluster of failure to which the monk barely even contributed. Afterall, those knights needed a 18+ to hit him, and the guards needed a 17+, and he should've been able to deflect missiles except the DM being a cheesemonger. He wasn't in much danger, if his team had ever rolled decently they'd have won, If they'd contributed intelligently, like actually knowing how thunder wave worked, or the monk going past him into the room to punch then ducking back behind him, things would've gone fine. It's literally everyone's fault but his, he was the least stupid person at that session.

He didn't need more than a 23, this has been stated, again reread old posts.

He didn't hit twice per round, he attacked twice per round. The AC was never 13 on any character, where did you get that number from?

Half cover is a +2 and that is what was given again, as stated multiple times throughout the thread which is why the knights had a 20 AC instead of an 18. Which negates the next comment. Reread all posts please.

The CR does not matter since as stated in this thread, 4 people beat it, because 6 of the 9 enemies were 1 shot. Reread old posts please. Since when was CR correct in D&D?

the knights needed a 17 to hit him, so did the guards. reread old posts please to find out why.

It is everyones fault, but his the most. They would have slaughtered the encounter just fine if they did it numerous other ways as stated in this thread. reread old posts please to find out how.

Edit: i find it hilarious you are continuously arguing on a thread about a game you were never apart of proven by the fact you hardly know what was going on and are spouting out wrong numbers/statements about the game in almost every single post. It is almost like you do this because you enjoy it.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

If you think of it as a conga line, that tactic may indeed seem "metagamey" and "cheesy." I tend to think of it as a somewhat more realistic simulation of a fluid combat: you're swarmed by multiple enemies who are swinging at you and then backing away in an asynchronous manner. Would it somehow be more realistic if you couldn't attack a guy standing in the middle of a 10-foot-wide corridor because two of your buddies were in the way?

[GiantOctopodes]

If you think of it as a conga line, that tactic may indeed seem "metagamey" and "cheesy." I tend to think of it as a somewhat more realistic simulation of a fluid combat: you're swarmed by multiple enemies who are swinging at you and then backing away in an asynchronous manner. Would it somehow be more realistic if you couldn't attack a guy standing in the middle of a 10-foot-wide corridor because two of your buddies were in the way?

Think of it this way:

You have the following situation, where X is an enemy, P is a player, and O is an open space:

XX
XX
XX
PP
PP

The players and monsters are facing off in a crowded 10' corridor, only wide enough for 2 people to fight abreast. The front two PCs and monsters can make attacks, making it 2v2, everyone behind needs to make ranged attacks or have a reach weapon. Totally normal.

XX
XX
OX
PP
PP

One monster was killed. What folly! By opening up a space on the front lines, now the 4 monsters in back can rotate into that position freely, making it 5v2 on the front lines, since all 4 enemies can slide through each other's ranks, get to the players, attack, then slide back precisely where they were. Only two of them draw AoOs (the max that the players can provide) so the monsters leverage that to overwhelm the players with numerical superiority.

You tell me: Totally logical and realistic? If you think so, great, feel free to leave things as they are. From my standpoint, having fewer enemies facing the PCs should not result in a larger number of attacks coming in, negating the advantage of a narrow corridor in which to fight. During what movie or really, anything at all, have you seen the enemies shuffling around squeezing past each other in narrow corridors to *increase* their number of attacks? And keep in mind, these are not lunging strikes, that's a battlemaster thing which is totally reasonable by extending reach. They are physically marching up, swinging, and returning to whence they came, with 4 different people occupying the same spot (all of whom are making meaningful attacks) in 6 seconds.

Edit:

It is everyones fault, but his the most. They would have slaughtered the encounter just fine if they did it numerous other ways as stated in this thread. reread old posts please to find out how.


Let's say they didn't have thunderwave, and they didn't know they could ready an action to grapple. All the enemies are surrounding the space in the middle, and the players don't come to the conclusion that stepping forward, into the middle of all the enemies, actually *reduces* how many enemies can attack them each round (get your head around *that* one). Without that AOE, and with the 9 opponents all of whom get melee attacks every round through this tactic, how exactly do they "slaughter" this encounter *without* the protection of the monk keeping them alive? Because here's how I see it playing out:

1) The monk moves aside so the Rogue and such can shoot.
2) They make a few attacks against the guards.
3) A different member of the party, with their lower AC, gets killed in a single round by the conga line of doom
4) They trade a killed guard (maybe two) for a killed party member per round, until it's down to 3 players vs the 2 knights and bandit captain
5) 1, maybe 2, PCs emerges victorious. Or, a TPK happens.

Without using that AOE, which *could have been used*, and without intricate and detailed knowledge of the rules from a group that clearly did not have that sort of mastery, I see no way for them to "slaughter" the encounter at all. Not saying the player couldn't have done better- the way you play, he should have stepped forward into the middle of his enemies, reducing the number of attacks by 3/round (totally logical, that), and taken out the guards round by round. But imho if everyone else gets an F for their performance as described by you, he at least gets a C, as his tactics were sound, if not ideal.

[silveralen]

Calm down buster brown. No need to get emotional over a thread about a game you aren't apart of.

Yes, this would have worked. But so would everything else that has been said in this forum. And the fact remains the monk did something unnecessary and this is without him knowing about this to begin with or even the fact the druid could use this spell at all.

He didn't need more than a 23, this has been stated, again reread old posts.

Half cover is a +2 and that is what was given again, as stated multiple times throughout the thread which is why the knights had a 20 AC instead of an 18. Which negates the next comment. Reread all posts please.

The CR does not matter since as stated in this thread, 4 people beat it, because 6 of the 9 enemies were 1 shot. Reread old posts please. Since when was CR correct in D&D?

It is everyones fault, but his the most. They would have slaughtered the encounter just fine if they did it numerous other ways as stated in this thread. reread old posts please to find out how.

Edit: i find it hilarious you are continuously arguing on a thread about a game you were never apart of proven by the fact you hardly know what was going on and are spouting out wrong numbers/statements about the game in almost every single post. It is almost like you do this because you enjoy it.

It annoys me for a bunch of morons and incompetents to pin the blame for their failure on one player who was acting intelligently by most standards.

Oh, you said earlier he needed a 20 to hit the knights, which isn't true if they have an 18 AC +2 cover, +2 parry. So I assumed you meant a 20 roll, which is a 26 at this level. That's be an 18+5+2, so 3/4ths cover.

Well yeah, because that time his teammates were actually contributing rather than standing around with their heads up their bums. The Druid was a moron who can't be bothered to learn how his spells work, the DM can't be bothered either, and you lay blame on the monk? The other monk could've been at least hitting someone and running back each turn. Or dashed in and fought alongside his buddy. Nothing stopped him.

It was his fault least, the other monk and Druid were far more at fault, at least the wizard/archer were trying alongside the cleric, even if not much.

Not really, most of my numbers have been correct when given accurate information. The fact you said 20 to hit when that was never true due to parry made me think you meant the roll, since 20 obviously wasn't the total needed and made sense for the roll needed if he used 3/4ths cover.

I'm bothered because holding the door was actually a great strategy. I've used it in my game to great effect. The fact his party members are idiots who can't exploit it isn't his fault, and his DM abuses awful cheesy tactics which make the number of spaces open adjacent to him irrelevant. Your group is filled with failure and stupidity and deflects it to the single intelligent person in the entire moronic cluster.

[Bellberith]

It annoys me for a bunch of morons and incompetents to pin the blame for their failure on one player who was acting intelligently by most standards.

Oh, you said earlier he needed a 20 to hit the knights, which isn't true if they have an 18 AC +2 cover, +2 parry. So I assumed you meant a 20 roll, which is a 26 at this level. That's be an 18+5+2, so 3/4ths cover.

Well yeah, because that time his teammates were actually contributing rather than standing around with their heads up their bums. The Druid was a moron who can't be bothered to learn how his spells work, the DM can't be bothered either, and you lay blame on the monk? The other monk could've been at least hitting someone and running back each turn. Or dashed in and fought alongside his buddy. Nothing stopped him.

It was his fault least, the other monk and Druid were far more at fault, at least the wizard/archer were trying alongside the cleric, even if not much.

Not really, most of my numbers have been correct when given accurate information. The fact you said 20 to hit when that was never true due to parry made me think you meant the roll, since 20 obviously wasn't the total needed and made sense for the roll needed if he used 3/4ths cover.

I'm bothered because holding the door was actually a great strategy. I've used it in my game to great effect. The fact his party members are idiots who can't exploit it isn't his fault, and his DM abuses awful cheesy tactics which make the number of spaces open adjacent to him irrelevant. Your group is filled with failure and stupidity and deflects it to the single intelligent person in the entire moronic cluster.

Every situation requires different strategies depending on what you are against and your party makeup. They didn't have the proper tools (or at the very least didn't know they had them) to deal with the encounter handled in that manner.

Holding the door in that situation was a good idea that was going badly, so a better idea would have been to use a new idea. That is common sense.

It is not my group, and they weren't failing or being stupid seeing as how they completed the encounter with almost 0 danger and less people. When a single intelligent person is part of the losing encounter and the idiots were the only factor in the winning fight.... Who is the factor that caused the loss? In my eyes it is the "intelligent" person.

[silveralen]

Every situation requires different strategies depending on what you are against and your party makeup. They didn't have the proper tools (or at the very least didn't know they had them) to deal with the encounter handled in that manner.

Holding the door in that situation was a good idea that was going badly, so a better idea would have been to use a new idea. That is common sense.

It is not my group, and they weren't failing or being stupid seeing as how they completed the encounter with almost 0 danger and less people. When a single intelligent person is part of the losing encounter and the idiots were the only factor in the winning fight.... Who is the factor that caused the loss? In my eyes it is the "intelligent" person.

Sure they did. Please explain what the other monk was doing, because their was no reason he couldn't have been contributing. Same with the Druid, does he have thorn whip? Cure wounds? Entangled? Did the wizard have web? Magic missle? Any of those could have changed the entire dynamic. I have more to list, but they literally needed the worst spell lists imagine able to not have the tools to win using this strategy. Oh and to actually bother learning how to use their abilities.

What could he have done? If he moves back he takes extra hits from opportunity attacks, is still going to get hit by just as many enemies as long as a single open space is next to him, and all his teammates could already be attacking with him in that location, at best he gives the archer/wizard a slightly better chance to hit, that's really it. Nothing else would've changed if he moved. Honestly, if everyone backed up but the monk and the Druid had used his "special" version of thunderwave, he wouldn't have taken any more damage than if a single knight landed an opportunity attack. So honestly, I see absolutely no reason for him to move from his spot. Not a single concrete reason.

Seriously, you keep claiming it "stopped" them from winning. How? The party stopped themselves by being idiots. I can name 5 things any party member could've done to not be such a waste of a space. At least he kept the enemies occupied.

They won later because the Druid's incorrect version of the spell worked better in that variation, the DM couldn't abuse a tactic, and the rolls went better. That's it. That's the difference.

Over the course of six rounds, this party apparently couldn't even take down 4 11 HP enemies. Even with a +2 cover AC, that's bad luck. It was the biggest contribution to their loss.

[Bellberith]

Sure they did. Please explain what the other monk was doing, because their was no reason he couldn't have been contributing. Same with the Druid, does he have thorn whip? Cure wounds? Entangled? Did the wizard have web? Magic missle? Any of those could have changed the entire dynamic. I have more to list, but they literally needed the worst spell lists imagine able to not have the tools to win using this strategy. Oh and to actually bother learning how to use their abilities.

What could he have done? If he moves back he takes extra hits from opportunity attacks, is still going to get hit by just as many enemies as long as a single open space is next to him, and all his teammates could already be attacking with him in that location, at best he gives the archer/wizard a slightly better chance to hit, that's really it. Nothing else would've changed if he moved. Honestly, if everyone backed up but the monk and the Druid had used his "special" version of thunderwave, he wouldn't have taken any more damage than if a single knight landed an opportunity attack. So honestly, I see absolutely no reason for him to move from his spot. Not a single concrete reason.

Seriously, you keep claiming it "stopped" them from winning. How? The party stopped themselves by being idiots. I can name 5 things any party member could've done to not be such a waste of a space. At least he kept the enemies occupied.

They won later because the Druid's incorrect version of the spell worked better in that variation, the DM couldn't abuse a tactic, and the rolls went better. That's it. That's the difference.

Over the course of six rounds, this party apparently couldn't even take down 4 11 HP enemies. Even with a +2 cover AC, that's bad luck. It was the biggest contribution to their loss.

We have been talking in circles for a long time now.

Accept the fact that you weren't there. The smaller party won without the "intelligent" guy. And the encounter was actually not that hard.

Then you can stop getting your jimmies rustled over someone elses game.

[silveralen]

We have been talking in circles for a long time now.

Accept the fact that you weren't there. The smaller party won without the "intelligent" guy. And the encounter was actually not that hard.

Then you can stop getting your jimmies rustled over someone elses game.

Ah now you suddenly lack answers. No please, I'd like to continue. Lets go through the wizard and druid's spell lists. Did the other monk contribute anything?

The group is incompetent, they only won the second time due to luck and because the moron Druid misread his spell so that it only worked in one of the scenarios.

That was by far the biggest bit of stupid, who doesn't bother to check how their freaking spells work? And why didn't he have anything else? Followed closely by the monk, for some reason not running ahead of his buddy with dodge active to take some heat off, or to attack the weaker enemies. Then we have the wizard, who with his vast array of spells had nothing to help.

Like I said, they got lucky the second time and unlucky the first, and suddenly got less stupid the second time they tackled it. Certainly wasn't the monks fault, he was by far one of the least culpable for their failure.

Sorry, when someone is apparently so unhappy with the handling of a game to post on a forum, someone screwed up. Being blamed incorrectly for the failure of an entire group of morons isn't nice. That player should be made aware he did nothing wrong, the fault was on the awful DM and group he played with.

[Bellberith]

Ah now you suddenly lack answers. No please, I'd like to continue. Lets go through the wizard and druid's spell lists. Did the other monk contribute anything?

The group is incompetent, they only won the second time due to luck and because the moron Druid misread his spell so that it only worked in one of the scenarios.

That was by far the biggest bit of stupid, who doesn't bother to check how their freaking spells work? And why didn't he have anything else? Followed closely by the monk, for some reason not running ahead of his buddy with dodge active to take some heat off, or to attack the weaker enemies. Then we have the wizard, who with his vast array of spells had nothing to help.

Like I said, they got lucky the second time and unlucky the first, and suddenly got less stupid the second time they tackled it. Certainly wasn't the monks fault, he was by far one of the least culpable for their failure.

Sorry, when someone is apparently so unhappy with the handling of a game to post on a forum, someone screwed up. Being blamed incorrectly for the failure of an entire group of morons isn't nice. That player should be made aware he did nothing wrong, the fault was on the awful DM and group he played with.

If you insist.....


Sure they did. Please explain what the other monk was doing, because their was no reason he couldn't have been contributing. Same with the Druid, does he have thorn whip? Cure wounds? Entangled? Did the wizard have web? Magic missle? Any of those could have changed the entire dynamic. I have more to list, but they literally needed the worst spell lists imagine able to not have the tools to win using this strategy. Oh and to actually bother learning how to use their abilities.

What could he have done? If he moves back he takes extra hits from opportunity attacks, is still going to get hit by just as many enemies as long as a single open space is next to him, and all his teammates could already be attacking with him in that location, at best he gives the archer/wizard a slightly better chance to hit, that's really it. Nothing else would've changed if he moved. Honestly, if everyone backed up but the monk and the Druid had used his "special" version of thunderwave, he wouldn't have taken any more damage than if a single knight landed an opportunity attack. So honestly, I see absolutely no reason for him to move from his spot. Not a single concrete reason.

Seriously, you keep claiming it "stopped" them from winning. How? The party stopped themselves by being idiots. I can name 5 things any party member could've done to not be such a waste of a space. At least he kept the enemies occupied.

They won later because the Druid's incorrect version of the spell worked better in that variation, the DM couldn't abuse a tactic, and the rolls went better. That's it. That's the difference.

Over the course of six rounds, this party apparently couldn't even take down 4 11 HP enemies. Even with a +2 cover AC, that's bad luck. It was the biggest contribution to their loss.

The other monk was attempting to attack on the reactions he was getting when someone entered and left the range.

The druid and the half-wizard did cast a few spells but they were mostly on the captain and were to little effect either through them rolling low, or the captain rolling high. btw before you say anything all rolls even from the DM were in plain sight.

The monk not doing that but instead if he decided to let them in or rush in the begin with would have made the fight go entirely different.

The spell would have been used to the same effect either way. The enemies were very tightly packed.

Yes, it has already been stated the allied party rolled low, the enemy party rolled well.

And his character would not have died if he didn't stand there. The cleric had to heal him quite a bit and if the damage was instead spread out over the 3 different characters who could absorb damage quite well things would have ended very very different. As proven by what happened afterwards.

Edit: I have answers, i chose not to respond earlier and instead point out that you are rustling your own jimmies unnecessarily because it is true. Now if you want to keep posting then please, post another reply. I have all the answers you need because i was there, and you were not.

[Jakinbandw]

To be honest, around round 3 as the monk, I would have decided that I had had enough and was going to fall back. No healing or seeming help from anyone. I think I would have just left. Taken the 2 AoO and legged it. I did stay and die and the rest of the group laughed at me, you can bet I would never try to be a team player again. Probably would play ranged rouge and stay as far back from danger as possible, never go into a dangerous situation, and let everyone take attacks.

But that would just be my recommendation to the OP. Stay out of all the fights, don't let yourself get into danger. This group believes that if you die you are stupid, so never take any risk to help someone else. As a rouge you can run away from fights that are going badly faster than the rest of the group and stay hidden so you aren't in danger.

Or if you can, find another group.

[silveralen]

If you insist.....

The other monk was attempting to attack on the reactions he was getting when someone entered and left the range.

The druid and the half-wizard did cast a few spells but they were mostly on the captain and were to little effect either through them rolling low, or the captain rolling high. btw before you say anything all rolls even from the DM were in plain sight.

The monk not doing that but instead if he decided to let them in or rush in the begin with would have made the fight go entirely different.

The spell would have been used to the same effect either way. The enemies were very tightly packed.

Yes, it has already been stated the allied party rolled low, the enemy party rolled well.

And his character would not have died if he didn't stand there. The cleric had to heal him quite a bit and if the damage was instead spread out over the 3 different characters who could absorb damage quite well things would have ended very very different. As proven by what happened afterwards.

Edit: I have answers, i chose not to respond earlier and instead point out that you are rustling your own jimmies unnecessarily because it is true. Now if you want to keep posting then please, post another reply. I have all the answers you need because i was there, and you were not.

Reactions? What? Where was the other monk? If he had reaction attacks, he was standing next to an enemy.

Single target spells? On the captain? Absurdly stupid. They should have been targeting the weaker enemies, cleared the field a bit, or used movement controlling abilities to shut down the conga line. Every spell they cast was a bad descion if they were targeting the captain. So yeah, idiocy.

So early on in the fight it would have mattered if they adopted a completely different strategy, but by the time it was clear this strategy didn't work it was too late to rush in. So he needed to see into the future to tell what tactic would be good and which would be bad. The only time that knowledge would help.... is if they redid the entire encounter.

Why wouldn't his character have died? He is a melee class, the DM was focus firing him. Didn't matter where he was, if a single space was open all nine would hit him. I mean those guards have ranged attacks, yet ignored them to stab the monk. Didn't matter what he did unless he just left the party behind, the DM was throwing everything at one character in the best way he could, to the point of using the melee movement to deny the Monk his deflect missle ability. Player couldn't have done anything.

Afterwards they had foresight to know exactly what was coming, better luck, and a decent AoE they always should have had. Had nothing to do with the monk not being there.

[Bellberith]

Reactions? What? Where was the other monk? If he had reaction attacks, he was standing next to an enemy.

Single target spells? On the captain? Absurdly stupid. They should have been targeting the weaker enemies, cleared the field a bit, or used movement controlling abilities to shut down the conga line. Every spell they cast was a bad descion if they were targeting the captain. So yeah, idiocy.

So early on in the fight it would have mattered if they adopted a completely different strategy, but by the time it was clear this strategy didn't work it was too late to rush in. So he needed to see into the future to tell what tactic would be good and which would be bad. The only time that knowledge would help.... is if they redid the entire encounter.

Why wouldn't his character have died? He is a melee class, the DM was focus firing him. Didn't matter where he was, if a single space was open all nine would hit him. I mean those guards have ranged attacks, yet ignored them to stab the monk. Didn't matter what he did unless he just left the party behind, the DM was throwing everything at one character in the best way he could, to the point of using the melee movement to deny the Monk his deflect missle ability. Player couldn't have done anything.

Afterwards they had foresight to know exactly what was coming, better luck, and a decent AoE they always should have had. Had nothing to do with the monk not being there.

He was standing next to the allied monk and getting a reaction on the first guy in the "conga line" as you call it.

He didn't need to see into the future, just retreat with the rest of the party... OH something he forgot to mention and so did i because of everything that was said is that the party ran away and he decided to stay behind for some unknown reason even after closing the door (with a broken lock)....

He was throwing everything at one character because that was the only character standing inside the doorway.

And if you would remember from earlier posts, terrible playing and planning by the entire party. The main reason why people laughed was his decision to stay behind actually. Which he didn't need to btw... Being a wood elf monk (i think... could have been the other monk, or both) he was MUCH faster than everyone else. Could have gotten away when he ran easily. But he never moved.

[silveralen]

He was standing next to the allied monk and getting a reaction on the first guy in the "conga line" as you call it.

He didn't need to see into the future, just retreat with the rest of the party... OH something he forgot to mention and so did i because of everything that was said is that the party ran away and he decided to stay behind for some unknown reason even after closing the door (with a broken lock)....

He was throwing everything at one character because that was the only character standing inside the doorway.

And if you would remember from earlier posts, terrible playing and planning by the entire party. The main reason why people laughed was his decision to stay behind actually. Which he didn't need to btw... Being a wood elf monk (i think... could have been the other monk, or both) he was MUCH faster than everyone else. Could have gotten away when he ran easily. But he never moved.

So he was also making normal attacks as well, right? He was steeping forward, attacking, and stepping back? The same tactic the DM used?

Wow, I love it when a DM messes up then goes "well why didn't you just run?" Always makes me laugh. The ultimate cop out of failure.

Except... He clearly could attack the other monk, or shoot at the party behind. After all, they were attacking his characters. He chose to single a PC out and send everything at him. Surprise suprise, if you focus the entirety of an encounter on one player they eventually die, especially if that player's teammates can't do anything.

So... now people mock him for protecting his teammates during the retreat? Oh yeah, mockable for sure. Those enemies have the same move speed as most PCs and ranged attacks, they wouldn't have gotten away if he hasn't stayed behind.

I'd still like a list of spells those casters know by the way. Or a list of what they used.

Honestly it sounds like he managed to stop the rest of the party from getting killed. Those guys were useles, and unlike him didn't have a high AC I'd imagine.

[Bellberith]

So he was also making normal attacks as well, right? He was steeping forward, attacking, and stepping back? The same tactic the DM used?

Wow, I love it when a DM messes up then goes "well why didn't you just run?" Always makes me laugh. The ultimate cop out of failure.

Except... He clearly could attack the other monk, or shoot at the party behind. After all, they were attacking his characters. He chose to single a PC out and send everything at him. Surprise suprise, if you focus the entirety of an encounter on one player they eventually die, especially if that player's teammates can't do anything.

So... now people mock him for protecting his teammates during the retreat? Oh yeah, mockable for sure. Those enemies have the same move speed as most PCs and ranged attacks, they wouldn't have gotten away if he hasn't stayed behind.

I'd still like a list of spells those casters know by the way. Or a list of what they used.

Honestly it sounds like he managed to stop the rest of the party from getting killed. Those guys were useles, and unlike him didn't have a high AC I'd imagine.

Thanks for the laugh. So anytime the party loses a fight it is the DMs fault?

That was great.

Glad to know why you were so vocal in this. Apparently you play in game where failure is not an option.

[silveralen]

Thanks for the laugh. So anytime the party loses a fight it is the DMs fault?

That was great.

Glad to know why you were so vocal in this. Apparently you play in game where failure is not an option.

Oh not everytime, but here it was. Deadly encounter, misapplication of cover rules, abuse of movement to negate a player's tactical thinking and class features, overall it was mostly his fault. Runner up is the Druid for his inability to read of course.

[Shining Wrath]

Your DM does not understand the rules. A combatant may split their moves and attacks up as they like during their turn - e.g., move, attack, move, attack, move; but they may not attack, move, and then hold the rest of their action until after some other combatant has acted, for "Hold" is itself an action which precludes choosing "Attack" as an action.

Your DM cheated.

[Bellberith]

Your DM does not understand the rules. A combatant may split their moves and attacks up as they like during their turn - e.g., move, attack, move, attack, move; but they may not attack, move, and then hold the rest of their action until after some other combatant has acted, for "Hold" is itself an action which precludes choosing "Attack" as an action.

Your DM cheated.

He did no such thing to begin with. What are you even talking about?

[Giant2005]

Holding that door did nothing for him.

This is exactly right. Holding that door did nothing at all for him but it was never intended to do anything for him - it was intended to protect his squishier allies and at that, it functioned as intended.
The problem is that it sounds like those squishier allies didn't do their part of the job, instead they sat around laughing at him while he did his best to protect him. It was only after he had fallen that they finally decided to do their part in the fight.
You keep saying that 4 of them managed to succeed by simply going in there and aoeing and killing everything. That is exactly how the fight should have gone - in a perfect scenario that Monk would have been blocking the doorway so his allies were safe, while they charged in, did their AOEs and then retreated back to the safety of the room behind him. The problem is that the Monk seemingly got abandoned for whatever reasons. Either his allies were too stupid to know the basics of strategy or they wanted him dead because their either didn't like him or wanted someone to mock.

[1337 b4k4]

It annoys me for a bunch of morons and incompetents to pin the blame for their failure on one player who was acting intelligently by most standards.

...

I'm bothered because holding the door was actually a great strategy.

Eh, not so much. As I pointed out earlier, even in fiction, one man making a stand in a choke hold usually end in death for that one man. The only "great" strategy found in blocking a bottle neck with you body is allowing your companions to escape. If they aren't escaping, you're just throwing your life away by restricting you own movement abilities and attack options and allowing your opponents the choice of how and when to engage you.

Further, it's unhelpful for either you or Bellberith to be calling anyone a moron at this point because:

1) The OP has not returned to refute or confirm anything said by Bellberith
2) Another poster has chimed in to indicate that the OP's version of the events may not be particularly accurate
3) We don't have the actual logs of the event in question.

It's no more fair for you to assume the DM was a cheesy cheating jerk and the rest of the party were lazy SOBs on the word of the OP than it's fair for you to assume the OP was a drooling moron on the word of Bellberith. Frankly, unless and until the OP or Bellberith can secure permission from the players and post the logs of the event in question, I don't see how either you or Bellberith can satisfactorily resolve your disagreement.

To the OP, as has been stated enough times in this thread, assuming your version of the events, your DM misapplied some rules and used a particularly dangerous but (ignoring the misapplication of some of the rules) rules legal tactic against you. If you aren't having fun with the group or the DM and they seem unresponsive to your concerns, you should find a new group. There's no reason to play games with people who you don't have fun with, and there's no shame in wanting to play with people who play the game in the same way that you do. However, as some additional advice going forward, if you ever find yourself in a situation where your current plan of action is not working for multiple rounds, and your team mates are either not helping or otherwise ineffective, you should probably do a little bit of communicating, either asking for help or figuring out a new strategy. Frankly speaking, even if I were to take Bellberith's account at 100% face value, your party failed you by failing to communicate with you and encourage you to take a new strategy. Sitting around for 6 rounds watching your teammate die because they're not reading your mind is just a **** move. At the same time, if your teammates did suggest alternatives, and you didn't take those alternatives, then that's on you. "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" is a great platitude, but isn't very applicable when not succeeding brings you round by round closer to death. After 2 failures of your strategy, you should have been seriously considering other alternatives even if it didn't seem like it would work, your current strategy was obviously not working.

[Coidzor]

when you have a full room of people attacking you, dodge is a better use of ki by an infinite margin.

if he understood the clase and game mechanics there would be no thread on this. also, i edited my post in the wrong spot twice lol.

Edit: why would anyone ever use flurry when 9 people is attacking him? the knights had to roll a 17 or higher to hit, and so did the guards (guards didnt have half-cover to him because they were the ones rotating in the middle of the doorway, since they have a +3 AB and the knights have a +5 thats is why they both has to roll a 17 to hit.)

Using dodge makes the chance that any one of them would hit him very miniscule.

Edit (again): on a side note, nobody called the OP a moron. However he was told about dodge vs flurry in that situation while it was happening. And as pointed out earlier, the encounter was clearly not too hard for their level seeing as how 4 people completed it when they had 6 the time the OP was there.


Opps my bad I swore four of them were knights. But have to understand the tactics were a tad extreme for one person. The one was afk, two others were still trying to learn the game. And not sure what the other was doing most the time. XD
I used up all my Ki with flurry tries so had no more left to do the dodge action sadly so that was not a choice at the time.
Either way sorry for misinterpreting it.

Y'all need to get better at communicating with one another within your group and sharing your knowledge of the game with one another, it seems.


Eh, not so much. As I pointed out earlier, even in fiction, one man making a stand in a choke hold usually end in death for that one man. The only "great" strategy found in blocking a bottle neck with you body is allowing your companions to escape. If they aren't escaping, you're just throwing your life away by restricting you own movement abilities and attack options and allowing your opponents the choice of how and when to engage you.

Well, if it's actually a proper choke point then it acts as a force multiplier and can let one guy easily hold off, drive off, or defeat a half dozen or more. Like having the high ground and freely being able to use one's weapon while the enemy were hampered unless they were southpaws when defending stairs in ye olde memetic medieval castle.

The story of the Battle of Thermopylae indicates that they held the choke point pretty darn well and that rather than grind the Greeks down as you suggest is the only logical conclusion of a force holding a choke point, the Persians instead had to take advantage of an alternate path to get behind the Greeks.

[Bellberith]

Eh, not so much. As I pointed out earlier, even in fiction, one man making a stand in a choke hold usually end in death for that one man. The only "great" strategy found in blocking a bottle neck with you body is allowing your companions to escape. If they aren't escaping, you're just throwing your life away by restricting you own movement abilities and attack options and allowing your opponents the choice of how and when to engage you.

Further, it's unhelpful for either you or Bellberith to be calling anyone a moron at this point because:

1) The OP has not returned to refute or confirm anything said by Bellberith
2) Another poster has chimed in to indicate that the OP's version of the events may not be particularly accurate
3) We don't have the actual logs of the event in question.

It's no more fair for you to assume the DM was a cheesy cheating jerk and the rest of the party were lazy SOBs on the word of the OP than it's fair for you to assume the OP was a drooling moron on the word of Bellberith. Frankly, unless and until the OP or Bellberith can secure permission from the players and post the logs of the event in question, I don't see how either you or Bellberith can satisfactorily resolve your disagreement.

To the OP, as has been stated enough times in this thread, assuming your version of the events, your DM misapplied some rules and used a particularly dangerous but (ignoring the misapplication of some of the rules) rules legal tactic against you. If you aren't having fun with the group or the DM and they seem unresponsive to your concerns, you should find a new group. There's no reason to play games with people who you don't have fun with, and there's no shame in wanting to play with people who play the game in the same way that you do. However, as some additional advice going forward, if you ever find yourself in a situation where your current plan of action is not working for multiple rounds, and your team mates are either not helping or otherwise ineffective, you should probably do a little bit of communicating, either asking for help or figuring out a new strategy. Frankly speaking, even if I were to take Bellberith's account at 100% face value, your party failed you by failing to communicate with you and encourage you to take a new strategy. Sitting around for 6 rounds watching your teammate die because they're not reading your mind is just a **** move. At the same time, if your teammates did suggest alternatives, and you didn't take those alternatives, then that's on you. "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" is a great platitude, but isn't very applicable when not succeeding brings you round by round closer to death. After 2 failures of your strategy, you should have been seriously considering other alternatives even if it didn't seem like it would work, your current strategy was obviously not working.

They did encourage a new strategy, at the moment it was retreat and try again after a rest because they had already used spells and took alot of damage. They ran, monk stayed behind and died.

Also i never called him a drooling moron, he himself wasn't stupid at all. The actions he took at that point were called stupid. There is a significant difference in those statements.

But yea, i agree on the point this entire thing is pointless. And i have said that in an earlier post. It is an arguement between someone who was there and watching the whole thing go down, vs someone who is taking secondhand knowledge from a guy who didn't even know what he was fighting to begin with.

[GiantOctopodes]

They did encourage a new strategy, at the moment it was retreat and try again after a rest because they had already used spells and took alot of damage. They ran, monk stayed behind and died.

Also i never called him a drooling moron, he himself wasn't stupid at all. The actions he took at that point were called stupid. There is a significant difference in those statements.

But yea, i agree on the point this entire thing is pointless. And i have said that in an earlier post. It is an arguement between someone who was there and watching the whole thing go down, vs someone who is taking secondhand knowledge from a guy who didn't even know what he was fighting to begin with.

That was another point I wanted to raise- you laud the DM for the enemy's "intelligent tactics" of artificially inflating the number of attackers in a space, yet the PCs were allowed to retreat and rest for an *hour* only to return to that room and find the enemies standing around stupidly? Why were the PCs not hunted down and killed after the initial engagement? Why did the enemies do nothing to prepare the battlefield for the PC's return? Where, in short, were their actual tactics?

[Bellberith]

That was another point I wanted to raise- you laud the DM for the enemy's "intelligent tactics" of artificially inflating the number of attackers in a space, yet the PCs were allowed to retreat and rest for an *hour* only to return to that room and find the enemies standing around stupidly? Why were the PCs not hunted down and killed after the initial engagement? Why did the enemies do nothing to prepare the battlefield for the PC's return? Where, in short, were their actual tactics?

The enemies were cornered, and the PCs had NPC help directly outside the establishment. They were surrounded if im not mistaken, i do not have full details on that because i sat in on the session where they had the fight, not beforehand.

The room was relatively small and there was not anything they could use as barricades or to help them. And they were waiting in ambush... Until a druid runs in and killed 6 out of 9 guys then turned into a brown bear.

Also, I didn't "laud" anything. DM used the tactics with the enemies, but i find something like that to be fairly common sense. These guys are trained soldiers and knights. They should know exactly how to fight in these situations since they do come up in battle. Especially battles inside of a city/building. If the enemies were regular untrained people, or animals/monsters(depending on int/wis) then i would call BS if a DM were to fight like that.

[Knaight]

If you think of it as a conga line, that tactic may indeed seem "metagamey" and "cheesy." I tend to think of it as a somewhat more realistic simulation of a fluid combat: you're swarmed by multiple enemies who are swinging at you and then backing away in an asynchronous manner. Would it somehow be more realistic if you couldn't attack a guy standing in the middle of a 10-foot-wide corridor because two of your buddies were in the way?

The two to ten feet number is odd (5 foot squares represent a pretty loose formation), but in the context of a corridor fight not getting at someone because people are in the way is exactly what happens. It's similar to how bridges have been used as choke points fairly often, because it's way harder to surround someone on a bridge than someone in the open.

[silvtown]

Think of it this way:

You have the following situation, where X is an enemy, P is a player, and O is an open space:

XX
XX
XX
PP
PP

The players and monsters are facing off in a crowded 10' corridor, only wide enough for 2 people to fight abreast. The front two PCs and monsters can make attacks, making it 2v2, everyone behind needs to make ranged attacks or have a reach weapon. Totally normal.

XX
XX
OX
PP
PP

One monster was killed. What folly! By opening up a space on the front lines, now the 4 monsters in back can rotate into that position freely, making it 5v2 on the front lines, since all 4 enemies can slide through each other's ranks, get to the players, attack, then slide back precisely where they were. Only two of them draw AoOs (the max that the players can provide) so the monsters leverage that to overwhelm the players with numerical superiority.

You tell me: Totally logical and realistic? If you think so, great, feel free to leave things as they are. From my standpoint, having fewer enemies facing the PCs should not result in a larger number of attacks coming in, negating the advantage of a narrow corridor in which to fight. During what movie or really, anything at all, have you seen the enemies shuffling around squeezing past each other in narrow corridors to *increase* their number of attacks? And keep in mind, these are not lunging strikes, that's a battlemaster thing which is totally reasonable by extending reach. They are physically marching up, swinging, and returning to whence they came, with 4 different people occupying the same spot (all of whom are making meaningful attacks) in 6 seconds.

Edit:


Let's say they didn't have thunderwave, and they didn't know they could ready an action to grapple. All the enemies are surrounding the space in the middle, and the players don't come to the conclusion that stepping forward, into the middle of all the enemies, actually *reduces* how many enemies can attack them each round (get your head around *that* one). Without that AOE, and with the 9 opponents all of whom get melee attacks every round through this tactic, how exactly do they "slaughter" this encounter *without* the protection of the monk keeping them alive? Because here's how I see it playing out:

1) The monk moves aside so the Rogue and such can shoot.
2) They make a few attacks against the guards.
3) A different member of the party, with their lower AC, gets killed in a single round by the conga line of doom
4) They trade a killed guard (maybe two) for a killed party member per round, until it's down to 3 players vs the 2 knights and bandit captain
5) 1, maybe 2, PCs emerges victorious. Or, a TPK happens.

Without using that AOE, which *could have been used*, and without intricate and detailed knowledge of the rules from a group that clearly did not have that sort of mastery, I see no way for them to "slaughter" the encounter at all. Not saying the player couldn't have done better- the way you play, he should have stepped forward into the middle of his enemies, reducing the number of attacks by 3/round (totally logical, that), and taken out the guards round by round. But imho if everyone else gets an F for their performance as described by you, he at least gets a C, as his tactics were sound, if not ideal.


Although I don't have much to add to the thread as a whole, I think I have solution for this particular puzzle presented by GiantOctopodes.

I would rule that the spot where the monster was killed now represents difficult terrain (there IS a dead hulking, full-plated knight lying on the ground in that spot now). In that case, the back rank knights would use all 30ft of their movement just before getting back to their original position, which would result in sharing a space at the end of their movement and therefore nullifying their ability to participate in the Conga Line. This fix would only work in some situations.

[rlc]

Sounds like the story of what happened keeps changing with things that were conveniently forgotten but also contradict other details.
Either way, OP definitely made some poor decisions, but so did everybody else involved.
Also, I don't think OP will be playing with this group at all anymore and that's probably for the best for everybody.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Think of it this way:

You have the following situation, where X is an enemy, P is a player, and O is an open space:

XX
XX
XX
PP
PP

The players and monsters are facing off in a crowded 10' corridor, only wide enough for 2 people to fight abreast. The front two PCs and monsters can make attacks, making it 2v2, everyone behind needs to make ranged attacks or have a reach weapon. Totally normal.

XX
XX
OX
PP
PP

One monster was killed. What folly! By opening up a space on the front lines, now the 4 monsters in back can rotate into that position freely, making it 5v2 on the front lines, since all 4 enemies can slide through each other's ranks, get to the players, attack, then slide back precisely where they were. Only two of them draw AoOs (the max that the players can provide) so the monsters leverage that to overwhelm the players with numerical superiority.

You tell me: Totally logical and realistic? If you think so, great, feel free to leave things as they are. From my standpoint, having fewer enemies facing the PCs should not result in a larger number of attacks coming in, negating the advantage of a narrow corridor in which to fight. During what movie or really, anything at all, have you seen the enemies shuffling around squeezing past each other in narrow corridors to *increase* their number of attacks? And keep in mind, these are not lunging strikes, that's a battlemaster thing which is totally reasonable by extending reach. They are physically marching up, swinging, and returning to whence they came, with 4 different people occupying the same spot (all of whom are making meaningful attacks) in 6 seconds.

First off, you and I must have different definitions of a "narrow corridor." That thing is ten feet wide. Four people could walk side by side without ever touching.

That out of the way, we're talking a corridor, so your initial example presumably becomes:

OO
OO
OO
XX
XX
XX
PP
PP
OO
(etc)

So in this example, killing the one dude won't make any difference whatsoever, because on his first turn the guy closest to the players will attack and back up 15 feet to let his buddies get their attacks in. You'll end up with that same empty space in front of the players - which actually MAKES SENSE, because why the heck would you stand around right in front of the guy with a swinging sword when you can lunge and fade back?

"These are not lunging strikes, that's a battlemaster thing" - sorry, I disagree completely. The battlemaster also has maneuvers that let him attack and shove, attack and trip, or attack and disarm, and all of those are separate combat actions. The battlemaster's whole schtick is that he's such a trained combatant that he can perform these mundane maneuvers more fluidly and efficiently than a normal combatant, so he can get in damaging attacks AND lunge/trip/whatever.

Overall, you can try to parse out the specific movements of these creatures however you want, but it ends up looking like those arguments about HP: positioning in D&D is (and always has been) somewhat abstracted. That's why everyone gets their own little 5x5 cubicle to stand in, and you can move through allies' squares without worrying about it too much. (Although I can see a funny OOTS strip about the party having to take an elevator one person at a time because they can't fit 4+ people in a 5x5 space.)

None of this matters if you use the marking rules anyway; that lets you get in opportunity attacks on enough enemies that the conga technique probably isn't worthwhile.

[1337 b4k4]

Well, if it's actually a proper choke point then it acts as a force multiplier and can let one guy easily hold off, drive off, or defeat a half dozen or more. Like having the high ground and freely being able to use one's weapon while the enemy were hampered unless they were southpaws when defending stairs in ye olde memetic medieval castle.

Yes, but that force is multiplied against the person(s) in the choke point, because it restricts movement and options. In the OP's case, they were in the choke point, and therefore the force of the enemies was multiplied against the OP as their movement and cover options were limited.

The alternative use of a choke point (if it's large enough and your force is small enough) is to use the limited space within to only have to encounter a limited subset of your opponents at once. But this requires a large enough choke point to fit your entire fighting force and a subset of your opponents. A doorway is not a sufficiently large enough choke point for this strategy as it is only large enough for a single fighter, and in this case it was the OP. Even if the DM had not used the move and attack strategy, the description of the events leaves the OP standing in the doorway and fighting at a minimum 3 opponents at once.

[Giant2005]

Yes, but that force is multiplied against the person(s) in the choke point, because it restricts movement and options. In the OP's case, they were in the choke point, and therefore the force of the enemies was multiplied against the OP as their movement and cover options were limited.

The alternative use of a choke point (if it's large enough and your force is small enough) is to use the limited space within to only have to encounter a limited subset of your opponents at once. But this requires a large enough choke point to fit your entire fighting force and a subset of your opponents. A doorway is not a sufficiently large enough choke point for this strategy as it is only large enough for a single fighter, and in this case it was the OP. Even if the DM had not used the move and attack strategy, the description of the events leaves the OP standing in the doorway and fighting at a minimum 3 opponents at once.

It doesn't sound like that is what happened.
If the enemies were all standing in the doorway like that then the conga line tactic wouldn't have worked. That means that there was space on the other side of the doorway for the Monk's allies to move through and do their AOEs if they felt the need to fight but they chose to wait until after the Monk had died to put in any serious effort. Personally, I think they knew exactly what they were doing and chose to let the Monk die so they could mock him when saving him would have been extremely easy (As evidenced by them winning the same encounter with less people).

[MarkTriumphant]

He got the chance to make AoOs but he chose not to for some reason. So the guards werent dying. The party had 1 archer and 1 rogue/wizard that were both rolling terrible and had disadvantage on every attack for attacking through an allied square.


As far as I understand it, attacking through an allied square give light cover, which is -2, not the attack-screwing disadvantage.

[MunkeeGamer]

I loved watching this thread. I wish I would've had some popcorn. I think this is going to be indicative of one of 5e's weaknesses when we all look back 5 years from now. The system as a whole was designed to be appealing to a wide array of player types. It has functionality which appeals to the broadest audience possible. In doing this, the spectrum is much wider and the distance between player types grows larger. The larger the distance, the more frequent and intense the level of conflict will arise.

[Knaight]

I loved watching this thread. I wish I would've had some popcorn. I think this is going to be indicative of one of 5e's weaknesses when we all look back 5 years from now. The system as a whole was designed to be appealing to a wide array of player types. It has functionality which appeals to the broadest audience possible. In doing this, the spectrum is much wider and the distance between player types grows larger. The larger the distance, the more frequent and intense the level of conflict will arise.

A lot of this doesn't follow. For instance, there's the assumption that drastically different preferences will cause more heated conflict than subtly different preferences. Yet plenty of generic systems with a far wider range (GURPS, Fudge) have pretty healthy communities that generally get along well, and outside of RPGs intense conflict between subtly different variations of the same thing are downright common. Plus, this "weakness" is pretty isolated to things like forums and organized play. It won't be at all relevant to most groups.

[1337 b4k4]

I loved watching this thread. I wish I would've had some popcorn. I think this is going to be indicative of one of 5e's weaknesses when we all look back 5 years from now. The system as a whole was designed to be appealing to a wide array of player types. It has functionality which appeals to the broadest audience possible. In doing this, the spectrum is much wider and the distance between player types grows larger. The larger the distance, the more frequent and intense the level of conflict will arise.

I agree with Knaight, it seems to me that D&D has a particular problem with the fan base obsessing about the "one true way" more than many (most?) other RPGs. Compare the endless edition waring of D&D to say, Traveller, which has had so many editions and versions and ways of doing things and yet seems to be a relatively drama free community. If I had to venture a guess, I would bet that D&D's continued issues with these sorts of wide fan chasms has to do with being the largest RPG (more people, more conflict) and with it often being the first RPG for many people, which leads to a large younger fan base. If there's one thing I've noticed its that as I (and my friends) have gotten older, the desire for a "one true way" has lessened and been replaced with a more "if it makes you happy" approach.

[silveralen]

Not really sure how that correlates to the thread. It mostly talks about an unhappy player who is annoyed due to both the DM and party not handling a situation well.

One person getting blamed for party failure isn't that amazing when the issues spread party wide. Both monks didn't hold action to grapple (really unsure why the second monk didn't considering he couldn't attack anything on his turn). The casters seemed to focus on the big guy first, ignoring the little ones letting damage stack up. Despite all these numerous mistakes, they bin the blame on one guy (who again was at least contributing something), and the DM goes so far as to do the same, despite it in no way being that player's fault.

Then they come back and succeed because they learned to remove weak enemies before focusing on tough ones, but blame it all on the monk who in no way prevented them from trying this the first time, but decide it was due to not having a monk.

That's the crux of the unhappiness. A really bad table ruining one player's experience. It has nothing to do with this "one true way" thing people are looking for an excuse to being up, it was just a bad table with bad people.