D&D 5E XGTE Errata

[Sacrosanct]

Forum knee jerkers also said life clerics with a level dip as druid would ruin the game and make combat inconsequential with goodberry

And yet, I didn’t see players playing that class much, let alone often. So I agree with the designers. Let’s see how it unfolds in actual game tables first.

Using hyperbole like level 2 spells are almost limitless doesn’t do any good, and is not very accurate.

 

[pukunui]

And yet, I didn’t see players playing that class much, let alone often. So I agree with the designers. Let’s see how it unfolds in actual game tables first.

Fair enough. That said, I think I'm going to disallow it in my games until we see if it needs errata or not. I'd rather not chance it. PCs are hard enough to kill in this game as it is.

 

[Nevvur]

Forum knee jerkers also said life clerics with a level dip as druid would ruin the game and make combat inconsequential with goodberry

And yet, I didn’t see players playing that class much, let alone often. So I agree with the designers. Let’s see how it unfolds in actual game tables first.

Using hyperbole like level 2 spells are almost limitless doesn’t do any good, and is not very accurate.

Fair point. However, dipping a level is a pretty major decision both in terms of character concept and optimization. I rather enjoy healy support characters, but I find the cleric-druid MC unappealing on a conceptual level, even if a ruling allowed for superberries.

This spell doesn't require such consideration.

 

[5ekyu]

About this
"Using hyperbole like level 2 spells are almost limitless doesn’t do any good, and is not very accurate."

True, but given the up slot is an extra 10d6 healing per user per slot up, the use with higher slots is well worth it to as you advance in levels, making the "cost" of this spell rather small in the overall scope of say an 12th level char.

Which is more hyperbole though, the one you noted or using every char expending most/all their 1/lr hit dice as an "about same" to one char using one spell slot of 2+?

I mean, isn't it hyperbole to inflate "one char uses one slot of 2+ over 1 minute" cost to the same level as every character expending a substantial amount of their "per a LR" hit dice over an hour?



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

Fair enough. That said, I think I'm going to disallow it in my games until we see if it needs errata or not. I'd rather not chance it. PCs are hard enough to kill in this game as it is.

Also fair enough. I don't begrudge anyone who looks at a rule and thinks that they won't use it because it may cause issues at their table. You know your table more than I do, obviously. I just don't think it may be as game breaking as some are claiming, so I can see Crawford's reasoning here. How many things in the game were declared game breaking based on white room analysis and actually aren't? Life cleric goodberries? GWM? Sharpshooter? Paladin smiting? Eldritch blast?

There have been many. That's not to say it won't be an issue, but if it is universally or among a lot of tables, then we can decide to change it.

 

[jgsugden]

Fair enough. That said, I think I'm going to disallow it in my games until we see if it needs errata or not. I'd rather not chance it. PCs are hard enough to kill in this game as it is.

Just to state the obvious: The goal of the game is not to kill the PCs.

It is to tell a fun and interesting story within the scope of the rules. You can have an amazingly fun session where the PCs never take any damage! Damage and the threat of death, while one tool in a DM's arsenal of challenges, is relied upon too much as the ONLY tool by DMs that throw nothing but deadly encounters at their PCs.

So is it a problem to have PCs that can heal themselves - and others - through magic and start every battle refreshed? Sounds like a pretty heroic ability. I can tell lots of great stories using characters that can heal so well.

 

[5ekyu]

Jgsugden. Nothing is at all imbalancing in scenarios where it is not needed. The exact same "tell a story without threat of damage" blah blah can be used to support a catnip that does 50 hp of damage cuz in scenarios or challenges that don't feature damage done, that is not a problem at all.

Nothing in any game needs to be balanced for when its not needed.

Also, if in your game you want to structure things so your pcs start every battle refreshed, you already could because the thing you have the most impact on and control over is the rest of the world so how often pcs are driven into recovery challenge is almost completely you. Just have most stories feature plenty of downtime between threats and you are good.

You do not need a massive heal spell to let your characters always fight spring fresh. Did not before XGTE, don't after. In fact, in that kind of game, that spell would likely not be used. Why slot OOC healing if we never have OOC healing woes?

Elements matter and elements need to be balanced for a game for circumstances where they matter. The big difference this new spell provides for GM who want OOC recovery to play a role that is noticeable as an aspect of challenge is that it cuts that recovery for HP down from 1 hour SR once a day to 1 minute of OOC time with multiple uses, quite a few.

That drastically changes the risk trade off for refresh. That drastically reduced the loss of time challenge trade off and makes time pressure need to be much more contrived - we cannot wait 10 rounds vs we cannot wait an hour.

So, short version is as I said in an earlier post, for any game where recovery is supposed to be a part of the challenge, this won't matter. But for games more in line with anything close to their "adventuring day" structure or where recovery pressure is meant to be a thing, it is a rather huge change.

Prior to this spell, I had not seen lots of feedback crying for more resource returns more quickly - that it was too hard to stay alive. Quite the opposite.

As such, pushing this spell as fine and working as intended seems a significant surprise and in the wrong direction.

I wonder, if a spell recharged an expended slot per round for 10 rounds had been introduced if everybody would be all "that's fine, having casters full every fight is better" too.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[Chaosmancer]

[MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION]: I'm pretty sure someone asked Jeremy about that on Twitter and he said it was intentional. Can't confirm at the moment, though.

I'd be really interested if someone could explain the logic behind the move then.

I don't think either of those abilities is that much more powerful than what the Battlemaster or Arcane Archer can pull off, so why make them long rest only abilities while the Arcane Archer can go on Short Rest abilities?

It just doesn't make sense to me the way it ended up being written.

 

[bganon]

I'd be really interested if someone could explain the logic behind the move then.

I don't think either of those abilities is that much more powerful than what the Battlemaster or Arcane Archer can pull off, so why make them long rest only abilities while the Arcane Archer can go on Short Rest abilities?

It just doesn't make sense to me the way it ended up being written.

I think it's the reverse of what you think - the real difference between short rest and long rest abilities isn't power level, because that can (and should) be rescaled so that they match. The fundamental difference is that if two abilities are equal, but one is 2/short rest and the other, say, 5-6/day, is that the latter is more suitable for novas - all those uses could occur in a single combat.

The Cavalier's mark could've been 2/short rest, but as written all uses could be in one combat vs a single "boss" monster, which frankly makes it a lot cooler and more useful IMO. Same is true of the Samurai's Fighting Spirit.

 

[mellored]

Can you use tempest channel divinity to maximize chaos bolt? Would it jump targets?

What about evocation over channel and chaos bolt? What type of damage does it do?