D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

There is an Int saving throw before the illusion can take effect.

Yes there is, that statement was meant metaphorically and in context of:

Seems like no save, just suck and take (not huge amounts but ok-ish) damage for a lot of creatures.

because many creatures will have very little chance if making that save.

I edited the post a little to make that clear

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why go for a Dragon? Wouldn't a Mind Flayer be more effective, or would that possibly end up being too well known to the Githyanki (thereby giving some kind of benefit to their save?)

A young dragon was just the first Large-sized dangerous creature that came to mind for me, but Mind Flayer probably would be more effective, psychologically. Good point though about familiarity though; a DM might indeed grant advantage or proficiency on any associated Int checks to discern the illusion's nature.

Both of them might also cause him to do counterproductive things like order his squad to scatter to avoid AoEs.

In any case, I was making a narrow point about wasting the target's actions. I don't have any deep thoughts on the best illusions to use on githyanki, specifically.

 

[raleel]

A bit niche, but I can see using Arcane Gate to shift around dangerous terrain (say, lava, or a part of a river). Bonus action to turn the flood gate (heh) on and off.

I could also see using it at the edge of dangerous terrain, like a cliff, escaping through, then turning the active side to dump a pursuer.

Perhaps some use if the ground is not flat at a point, like on a hill or a roof, say.

 

[jayoungr]

I like your point that wizards don't have to be blasters, but you kind of lost me at the insistence that all 5E characters should be classified using the 4E categories of Striker, Controller, etc.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I like your point that wizards don't have to be blasters, but you kind of lost me at the insistence that all 5E characters should be classified using the 4E categories of Striker, Controller, etc.

I didn't play more than eight or so hours of 4E, but I'm pretty sure "Waste of Space" was not a 4E role. And didn't 4E have a Leader role?

And I think 4E used "Controller" in a different sense than Treantmonk's "controller of reality", too.

 

[Barolo]

I like your point that wizards don't have to be blasters, but you kind of lost me at the insistence that all 5E characters should be classified using the 4E categories of Striker, Controller, etc.

Wasn't it meant to be some tongue-in-cheek joke?

 

[jayoungr]

I didn't play more than eight or so hours of 4E, but I'm pretty sure "Waste of Space" was not a 4E role. And didn't 4E have a Leader role?

And I think 4E used "Controller" in a different sense than Treantmonk's "controller of reality", too.

Wasn't it meant to be some tongue-in-cheek joke?

I was referring to this (emphasis mine):

"How many times have you gotten/sent an email when wondering what kind of character you could make, and a reply comes up with something like, "We have a Rogue, a Druid and a Sorcerer." The implication of course is, "Make a fighter-type", but in fact, the email is useless.... Instead the email should say, "In combat we've got a Tank, a Striker and a Battlefield Controller, another Tank would be great...." Characters are too flexible in D&D to define role by class. Instead the role should be defined by what they do."

It assumes that each player will build a character to do one specific thing, and that thing will line up with one of the 4E categories.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I was referring to this (emphasis mine):

"How many times have you gotten/sent an email when wondering what kind of character you could make, and a reply comes up with something like, "We have a Rogue, a Druid and a Sorcerer." The implication of course is, "Make a fighter-type", but in fact, the email is useless.... Instead the email should say, "In combat we've got a Tank, a Striker and a Battlefield Controller, another Tank would be great...." Characters are too flexible in D&D to define role by class. Instead the role should be defined by what they do."

It assumes that each player will build a character to do one specific thing, and that thing will line up with one of the 4E categories.

I think you're looking at the statement too narrowly. When I do a party-optimization exercise, I do list all the roles I can think of and make note of which party members fulfill those roles and how many roles they fill. E.g.

Paladin of Devotion/Wild Sorcerer/Cthulock: Tank, summoner, counterspeller, ranged specialist, secondary healer, secondary artillery, tertiary scout, communicator/diplomat
Shadow Monk: Scout/intel specialist, disabler, secondary tank, secondary ranged specialist, communicator/diplomat
Bard/Cthulock: Healer, summoner, ranged specialist, counterspeller, secondary scout, communicator/diplomat
Necromancer/Cthulock: Summoner, ranged specialist, counterspeller, artillery, tertiary scout, communicator/diplomat

You can classify the functions/roles however you want, but the point is that you should think in terms of capabilities and not just classes. All wizards are not created identical and equal at all tasks. Even something as simple as whether you have Stealth from your Background, or whether you learned Invisibility, can make a big difference to your capabilities.

I'm inclined to cut some slack to treantmonk. It's a one-sentence example--he can be forgiven for not saying "We've got a [Tank, summoner, counterspeller, ranged specialist, secondary healer, secondary artillery, tertiary scout, communicator/diplomat], a [Scout/intel specialist, disabler, secondary tank, secondary ranged specialist, communicator/diplomat], and a [Healer, summoner, ranged specialist, counterspeller, secondary scout, communicator/diplomat], so it would be great if you would bring someone who can broaden our utility spell coverage and maybe supply some powerful front-liner summons when necessary while retaining some stealth capability for infiltration scenarios." That example, while realistic, is so complicated to parse that it would obscure the point he's trying to make.

 

[smbakeresq]

For minor conjuration, my son came up with using investigator to see what type of key would work in a lock and then the spell to make a key. Seems like a good idea to me, as limited by your investigation result. Thoughts?

 

[raleel]

For minor conjuration, my son came up with using investigator to see what type of key would work in a lock and then the spell to make a key. Seems like a good idea to me, as limited by your investigation result. Thoughts?

i think that's quite creative, and I would allow it. I would require the roll for each lock.