D&D 5E 20th level Sorcerer vs the world

[prabe]

Weirdest game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Tactical Nukes, YOU SHOT FIRST, NUH UH YOU I’ve ever seen.

It’s kind of like if two Calvinball GMs got together and Calvinballed each other in the face until the other blinked.

Needs more rules and less leveraging offscreen dynamics, abstraction, and hidden backstory.

I don't entirely disagree, though to be fair I think there's one Calvinball GM and another, fairer-minded GM trying to play by the rules and established ... declarations (which seem to be subject to change).

 

[Hohige]

Sorry for actually having a life...

On initiative count 22, one of the pureblood yells karoukatchiketaf doubidou stash stash, triggering contingency for both him and the similar looking Yuan-ti riding an identical pegasus 10 ft from him.

The first yuan-ti elects to make the destination of his dimension door a point in the air 240 ft from the nearer rider (but not right under, in the direction of Candlekeek for the rest of the allowed distance) and casts distant dispel magic, using his action and a 3rd level spell slot, possibly being Lucky to reroll any resistance (for an average roll of 15 without being Lucky, 20 if needed. Since nightmare aren't natural creature, they have certainly been summoned to this plane by way of magic, which could have different effect if the spell was instant, long lasting or concentration, which the yuan-ti has no way to know. DM, what happens?

Let's do it in order to facilitate our understanding. Action by action:
1) I did it
2) Cast that spell.
3) etc.

Can you do that?


1) You used your contingency for distant Dimension Door 240ft from Bastion.

2) Cast Dispel at nightmare?

it is?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I agree. The original stated position was the "Bastion" was 660 feet above you, and the Sim was 660 feet above the "Bastion."

I'm pretty sure the "Bastion" said the nightmares were subject to Planar Binding. I don't think he ever said how they were brought to the material plane in the first place.

Yes, the intent was to dispel, whatever it is.

 

[Hohige]

Yes, the intent was to dispel, whatever it is.

You need 19 CDs.

It is not clear, action by action, please.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't entirely disagree, though to be fair I think there's one Calvinball GM and another, fairer-minded GM trying to play by the rules and established ... declarations (which seem to be subject to change).

To a degree.

But look at all the theorized blocks to the Sorcerer and prospective Wizard moves based on all the unknowns and unestablished details (situation, setting, offscreen, etc).

It can’t help but be Calvinball!

It reminds me of something I was thinking of the other day. Whenever I bring up how overpowered Spellcasters are in (non 4e) D&D (even the comparably reigned in ones in 5e), starting around level 7 and accelerating, the response is typically to talk about how “good GMing” plays extremely adversarially to spell casters (by leveraging their exclusive access to offscreen and martialling in established backstory resources or establishing adversarial backstory):

1) initiate all of these reactive caster blocks (which in my opinion overwhelmingly manifests as Force)

2) curate content preemptively to enact caster blocks

Similar to how these exact conversations play out where you don’t get people concretely establishing transparent spell lists, loadout, etc, those GMs that promote the adversarial Arms Race to keep casters “in check” just bring up a laundry list of contingencies (the dynamics of the blocks above)...yet they don’t supply

(a) how often are you making these moves during play?

(b) if it’s anywhere approaching 3/4 of the caster’s unique ability to obviate obstacles and control the trajectory of play...how are you preventing your walk-outs (no one is playing under that obnoxious regime of blocks and Force and curation) or are you fine with your casterless games?

(c) how do you deal with well-played spellcasters who deploy contingencies that work around your contingencies? More reactive blocks or Force? Ok, now answer (b).

(d) If it’s only, say, 1/3 (still an obnoxious rate in my opinion) how are your high level spellcasters not dictateing the gamestate and the trajectory of play?

 

[prabe]

19 DC. You can't grantee sucess.

Taking the averages, he kinda can. He has the Lucky feat, after all, and can re-roll until he gets the 14+ on the d20 he needs. If one takes Advantage as adding +5 (which is reflected in the rules) one Luck Point would plausibly be sufficient.

 

[Hohige]

Taking the averages, he kinda can. He has the Lucky feat, after all, and can re-roll until he gets the 14+ on the d20 he needs. If one takes Advantage as adding +5 (which is reflected in the rules) one Luck Point would plausibly be sufficient.

Average is 15.

There isn't advantage for dispel and It is 19 DC. Still It isn't a reliable action.

First action using Sorcery Points. This sorcerer is a proudy!

---

The Bastion is surprised by the range of the spell and says.
You have is a sorcerer.
"I already imagined, the cowards of Wizards are useless"

 

[prabe]

To a degree.

But look at all the theorized blocks to the Sorcerer moves based on all the unknowns and unestablished details (situation, setting, offscreen, etc).

It can’t help but be Calvinball!

It reminds me of something I was thinking of the other day. Whenever I bring up how overpowered Spellcasters are in (non 4e) D&D (even the comparably reigned in ones in 5e), starting around level 7 and accelerating, the response is typically to talk about how “good GMing” plays extremely adversarially to spell casters (by leveraging their exclusive access to offscreen and martialling in established backstory resources or establishing adversarial backstory):

1) initiate all of these reactive caster blocks (which in my opinion overwhelmingly manifests as Force)

2) curate content preemptively to enact caster blocks

Similar to how these exact conversations play out where you don’t get people concretely establishing transparent spell lists, loadout, etc, those GMs that promote the adversarial Arms Race to keep casters “in check” just bring up a laundry list of contingencies (the dynamics of the blocks above)...yet they don’t supply

(a) how often are you making these moves during play?

(b) if it’s anywhere approaching 3/4 of the caster’s unique ability to obviate obstacles and control the trajectory of play...how are you preventing your walk-outs (no one is playing under that obnoxious regime of blocks and Force and curation) or are you fine with your casterless games?

(c) how do you deal with well-played spellcasters who deploy contingencies that work around your contingencies? More reactive blocks or Force? Ok, now answer (b).

(d) If it’s only, say, 1/3 (still an obnoxious rate in my opinion) how are your high level spellcasters not dictateing the gamestate and the trajectory of play?

As I said, I don't entirely disagree--and I don't think 5E has quite the high-level spellcaster problem you do (as I understand you). Part of it, of course, is that at least one player is making a concerted attempt at cheez, which--if you're trying to demonstrate that even with the cheez, the character isn't invincible--doesn't leave the other side much choice but to deploy their own cheez. I'm fortunate as a DM, because my players haven't (yet) demonstrated much of a tendency to go for the cheez.

 

[prabe]

Average is 15.

There isn't advantage for dispel and It is 19 DC. Still It isn't a reliable action.

You are (unsurprisingly) misunderstanding.

Advantage allows one to roll the d20 twice, and is generally considered to be (on average) equivalent to a +5 on the roll. The wizard has the Lucky Feat, which allows him to reroll the d20, which statistically isn't different from rolling the d20 twice.

 

[Hohige]

You are (unsurprisingly) misunderstanding.

Advantage allows one to roll the d20 twice, and is generally considered to be (on average) equivalent to a +5 on the roll. The wizard has the Lucky Feat, which allows him to reroll the d20, which statistically isn't different from rolling the d20 twice.

Why advantage? It is still an unreliable action.