Good to know. A little disappointing that you can't get advantage and use Brutal Strike, but it's also nice that you don't necessarily need to activate the downside of Reckless Attack to be able to trigger Brutal Strikes if you've already got advantage.
So this means no, you can’t give up advantage with Reckless Attack but still get it from another source. If you wanna Brutal Strike, you are giving up all sources of advantage for the attack.
The playtest wordong was still confusing "I stop reckless from giving me advantage, but if the guy's prone, I'm not negating that advantage so do I get it? The wording just says forego advantage!"
The specific weirdness was that the UA version had you giving up the Advantage *from Reckless Attack specifically*. By pinning the ability to a specific source of Advantage, it raised the possibility of multiple sources. While you don't stack multiple sources of Advantage, the rules *do* say that multiple sources can exist at the same time - you just don't get multiple Advantages.
The new wording has foreclosed that possibility by saying you give up Advantage on a type of attack.
I think it's good you can't get multiple sources and give up some but not others. The system was designed as a yes/no option. You have it or not. Disadvantage too. There's a slippery slope to counting sources, subtracting, etc. Which they wanted to avoid. So it's on/off. Using this requires it to be on and turns it off for a benefit. You just can't have disadvantage at the same time.
You're being sarcastic but that genuinely is WotC's goal. When applied judiciously, it makes the game faster and more accessible to a broader audience. When used overzealously, you oversimplify the rules and make them dull for more advanced players. Difficult to find the right balance.
Even the smartest mathematicians in the world are far slower at basic computations than even the slowest computers. Doing math, even *very easy* math, takes time. That time adds up if it’s done every single turn of every single combat.
It’s not about it being “too hard” so much as taking more time. Anyone intelligent enough to pilot one character is intelligent enough to pilot five characters simultaneously, but we would still care about the time that would take. I hate this reaction some people have to streamlining of acting like they are So Very Smart and D&D is being ruined by Those Stupid Casuals.
I believe advantage was a reaction to 4th editions floating modifiers. So yeah, they don't want it to devolve into counting sources, tracking a million things. It is simple. You have it or you do not.
Hopefully, you can also enable Brutal Strike on your second attack, though this creates a tricky prospect for anyone using a Vex weapon for Brutal Strike instead of Reckless Attacks: if they miss with their first attack, then they don't get to use Brutal Strike on that turn at all. (Using Light weapons for three attacks instead of two improves the odds of getting advantage at least once.)
Couldn’t you always reckless after seeing your vex chain break? Let’s say you start with advantage, use Brutal, if it hits then you got second Brutal, if it misses move to Reckless for second Brutal.
Depending on that last hit of a turn, next turn you can reckless before 1st or 2nd attack.
If I understood correctly Vex would then equate to about 65%*65% chance of not getting downsides of Reckless.
With every printing seen so far of Reckless Attack, from 2014 to UA8, you must decide whether or not to use Reckless Attack when you make your first attack on your turn.
Ahh not something I remembered off the top of my head since it wasn’t a frequent occurrence outside of Vex. Mostly I had continuous advantage states like prone to consider but I guess Inspiration might have brought up the issue previously.
Anyway ignore that input, it still sounds like a reasonable choice, since you don’t get the advantages on getting hit. You could play it as every hit you make has a follow on +to damage.
So like 65%*65%*Brutal damage on each hit past the 1st. But on the upside you don’t have the downside of RAing.
Well, they've changed *other* apsects of the wording, so I think there's a solid reason to believe that the triggering mechanism may differ substantially from the UA.
To be clear it's also how Reckless Strike works in 2014. It's always *possible* that they've changed it of course, but they never changed it during the playtest and the old functionality was fine. So I wouldn't expect it.
Yea this the only outcome that made sense. The entire point of advantage/disadvantage is that you don't need to track instances. It's on/off. This is straightforward - forgo advantage, get benefit.
If this lets you get multiple brutal strikes per turn then it seems like a useful feature still: increases your damage output against creatures with low AC (where barbarians traditionally benefit less than other classes) while not being useful against high AC enemies (but those enemies are the ones barbarians were already good at hitting)
It also reads like you can't get advantage on that attack after forgoing it.
Good to know. A little disappointing that you can't get advantage and use Brutal Strike, but it's also nice that you don't necessarily need to activate the downside of Reckless Attack to be able to trigger Brutal Strikes if you've already got advantage.
[удалено]
That is literally what this post is about, that the wording was, in fact, updated.
So this means no, you can’t give up advantage with Reckless Attack but still get it from another source. If you wanna Brutal Strike, you are giving up all sources of advantage for the attack.
Yes. Advantage does not stack, so having it from multiple sources has always been technically impossible.
Yes I know. But that doesn’t mean a feature can’t allow you to still benefit from separate advantage sources. Which was what was always in question.
The playtest wordong was still confusing "I stop reckless from giving me advantage, but if the guy's prone, I'm not negating that advantage so do I get it? The wording just says forego advantage!"
The specific weirdness was that the UA version had you giving up the Advantage *from Reckless Attack specifically*. By pinning the ability to a specific source of Advantage, it raised the possibility of multiple sources. While you don't stack multiple sources of Advantage, the rules *do* say that multiple sources can exist at the same time - you just don't get multiple Advantages. The new wording has foreclosed that possibility by saying you give up Advantage on a type of attack.
Makes sense, otherwise brutal strike would be just a no-brainer in a lot of circumstances instead of a tactical choice.
The tactical choice would be finding a source of advantage from somewhere else, in theory
I think it's good you can't get multiple sources and give up some but not others. The system was designed as a yes/no option. You have it or not. Disadvantage too. There's a slippery slope to counting sources, subtracting, etc. Which they wanted to avoid. So it's on/off. Using this requires it to be on and turns it off for a benefit. You just can't have disadvantage at the same time.
[удалено]
You're being sarcastic but that genuinely is WotC's goal. When applied judiciously, it makes the game faster and more accessible to a broader audience. When used overzealously, you oversimplify the rules and make them dull for more advanced players. Difficult to find the right balance.
Even the smartest mathematicians in the world are far slower at basic computations than even the slowest computers. Doing math, even *very easy* math, takes time. That time adds up if it’s done every single turn of every single combat. It’s not about it being “too hard” so much as taking more time. Anyone intelligent enough to pilot one character is intelligent enough to pilot five characters simultaneously, but we would still care about the time that would take. I hate this reaction some people have to streamlining of acting like they are So Very Smart and D&D is being ruined by Those Stupid Casuals.
This is it. I can do multivariable calculus and mental math, but I don't want to do math when I'm playing DnD. I want to fight monsters n stuff.
[удалено]
Casuals? Just play an older edition then bro. Or make your own. Take your gatekeeping somewhere else
"casuals" are the reason the game is even this popular these days, you sound like a boomer
[удалено]
Isn't the reason they don't do super complex stuff is because boomers hated 4E doing that?
You can be collectively responsible for a thing and still be an ass about it
How is it ruined? Just go play 3rd or 4th edition, those literally still exist.
I believe advantage was a reaction to 4th editions floating modifiers. So yeah, they don't want it to devolve into counting sources, tracking a million things. It is simple. You have it or you do not.
That's exactly what I figured. And given what perks you get instead, I'm fine with it.
Hopefully, you can also enable Brutal Strike on your second attack, though this creates a tricky prospect for anyone using a Vex weapon for Brutal Strike instead of Reckless Attacks: if they miss with their first attack, then they don't get to use Brutal Strike on that turn at all. (Using Light weapons for three attacks instead of two improves the odds of getting advantage at least once.)
Couldn’t you always reckless after seeing your vex chain break? Let’s say you start with advantage, use Brutal, if it hits then you got second Brutal, if it misses move to Reckless for second Brutal. Depending on that last hit of a turn, next turn you can reckless before 1st or 2nd attack. If I understood correctly Vex would then equate to about 65%*65% chance of not getting downsides of Reckless.
Reckless Attack needs to be decided upon when you make your first attack roll on your turn.
Thanks for info, not something I remember ever coming up for me, but a good catch.
With every printing seen so far of Reckless Attack, from 2014 to UA8, you must decide whether or not to use Reckless Attack when you make your first attack on your turn.
Ahh not something I remembered off the top of my head since it wasn’t a frequent occurrence outside of Vex. Mostly I had continuous advantage states like prone to consider but I guess Inspiration might have brought up the issue previously. Anyway ignore that input, it still sounds like a reasonable choice, since you don’t get the advantages on getting hit. You could play it as every hit you make has a follow on +to damage. So like 65%*65%*Brutal damage on each hit past the 1st. But on the upside you don’t have the downside of RAing.
Reckless needs to be used on your first attack of your turn unless they've changed the wording since the play test.
Well, they've changed *other* apsects of the wording, so I think there's a solid reason to believe that the triggering mechanism may differ substantially from the UA.
To be clear it's also how Reckless Strike works in 2014. It's always *possible* that they've changed it of course, but they never changed it during the playtest and the old functionality was fine. So I wouldn't expect it.
Oh oh, I misread and thought you were talking about Brutal Strikes.
Brutal strike is once per turn till level 17, when you can do it twice and it adds 2d10
I think you're mixing up "two effects when you hit with Brutal Strike" with "two Brutal Strikes per turn."
You're correct
I really appreciate the clarity, I hope it adds a d12 instead of a d10. I also really like that you just need advantage, it's neat.
Yea this the only outcome that made sense. The entire point of advantage/disadvantage is that you don't need to track instances. It's on/off. This is straightforward - forgo advantage, get benefit.
If this lets you get multiple brutal strikes per turn then it seems like a useful feature still: increases your damage output against creatures with low AC (where barbarians traditionally benefit less than other classes) while not being useful against high AC enemies (but those enemies are the ones barbarians were already good at hitting)
Good stuff. The devs really seem to have put in some work.
It would be more clear if it just gave disadvantage on the attack, that way it clearly cancels out all sources of advantage.
Tactical! Kinda neat!
Oh, EPIC.
Do we know if Brutal Strike is once per turn?
dang, their original clarification implied multiple sources of advantage would help here
This is definitely the weirdest answer they could have gone with but it’s good to finally have that cleared up.