Timeline for Would it be balanced to introduce an "Aim Action" that uses the same mechanics as True Strike?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2020 at 5:10 | comment | added | Peter Cordes | You're right, 5e doesn't try to enumerate everything players can do. Let me rephrase, you're saying it's implicitly obvious that GMs should allow it to work this way when a player tries to line up their attack or spell. But that's exactly the point of the question. That ruling would effectively be creating an Aim action, and the question is whether that's balanced. e.g. it allows a rogue cornered on their own with nowhere to hide to get Sneak Attack every other turn, potentially huge for a high-level rogue. Is that reasonable? I don't know. Should this "aiming" concept work for spells? | |
| Sep 19, 2020 at 4:59 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @PeterCordes that's not to say, of course, that the only way to model such a statement is advantage on the next attack-- disadvantage on the attack, rolled immediately, but with misses meaning the player didn't fire rather than fired and missed, or taking an Action to make misses next round be shots the player didn't take rather than fired and missed would also be idiomatic. But in this case, the player wants advantage and is basically saying "I take an Action to create/wait for circumstances granting me advantage". The rules are clear on what the GM is supposed to do when players do that. | |
| Sep 19, 2020 at 4:54 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @PeterCordes It's not a homebrew Action, because that's not how the game works. Players describe what they are doing and negotiate that and the mechanical representation thereof with the GM. GMs do not, generally, 'allow' actions, they interpret and resolve them. If a player says "I line up a shot on the orc. I'm taking extra time to aim because it's important I don't miss" the GM is responsible for modelling that. Saying "Sorry, there's no 'aim' action in 5e" is both grossly misleading-- 5e doesn't enumerate actions that way-- and a dereliction of GMing duties. | |
| Sep 19, 2020 at 4:11 | comment | added | Peter Cordes | This answer is saying "every GM should allow this homebrew Action because it's implicitly obvious it should work". If that's true, then why isn't it in the basic rules? Agreed with @3C273. IMO, only the last paragraph really tries to answer the question about whether this homebrew rule is balanced. (And I do agree, good point about having someone else spend their action to do the same thing, but that generally requires them to be in melee to Help.) OTOH to justify the status quo, there's a limit to how long you can spend lining up a shot on a moving target before you plateau on accuracy. | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 19:34 | comment | added | 3C273 | Let me rephrase that. An action seem to me like enough of a cost in term of action economy. But most other options require 'something', either positionning, being aware of the environment or a check of some sort to get in position to attack. For this reason, I feel like the assertion that you can already do it is just false | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 19:17 | comment | added | 3C273 | I would tend to disagree on one detail. If only because allowing this invalidate True Strike. Most other action (accept Help) would require either a check (such as what Jon proposes below) or some interaction witht the environment (such as leading the target in dificult terrain or hiding among the scenery) | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 18:41 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @MarsPlastic Yes | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 18:04 | comment | added | Mars Plastic | So you're saying it shouldn't even need concentration? And that therefore by RAW True Strike is worse than something you should be able to do anyway? | |
| Sep 18, 2020 at 17:44 | history | answered | Please stop being evil | CC BY-SA 4.0 |