D&D 5E Blees Still Broken/OP?

[TwoSix]

You don't find having bless up regularly steps on the various cool arcane concentration spell options at your disposal?

Not appreciably, no, although most of our games haven't gotten past level 7 or so. All our games so far have featured at least 6 PCs, with several characters with strong at-will attacks (smiting paladins, rogues, warlocks with EB, Sharpshooter archers, etc.). So getting them to be as reliable as possible has been important, and the wizard has just focused on direct damage in addition to maintaining bless.

So you put one of your higher scores (at least a 13) into Wisdom when you make a Wizard and warlock, and you roleplay your devotion to your new god? Or do you just ignore the roleplaying part and just take the level dip?

One thing about level dipping that always threw me off. It seems to be done by folks who only look at classes as bags of stats, and completely ignore the first several paragraphs that tell you what the class actually is. Which is cool, if you choose to ignore those things. But I believe they are there for a reason. And they solve most of the issues people have with multiclassing. I.e., when people complain about multiclassing being too powerful, all you gotta do is make sure they roleplay each of the classes how they are intended. So if someone takes a dip into cleric, they better be roleplaying that PC as someone who is devoted to his or her god. Heck, back in 1e there was a rule that if you didn't do that, you could have spells withheld and nothing happens if you try to cast them. I wouldn't think it is a shocking revelation to assume that role playing is pretty important in a role playing game.

1) Classes ARE bags of stats, in my opinion. I take them, build some interesting mechanical hooks for my character, and then come up with a story for what the character is, with some aggressive refluffing. I am adamantly NOT in the camp that classes have campaign world relevance; only the abilities do.

2) One of my personal dislikes is the standard D&D mythology of gods for everything, and my own campaigns tend not to feature them. Almost every campaign I've played in over the last decade or so has been "Make up your own god". Just as an example, one of my current characters is a minotaur life cleric, who is a follower of the Cult of the Blue Oyster, and his bless spell generates the constant inspiring sound of a divine cowbell.

3) As another example, I also had a moon druid with the ritual caster feat, who simply flavored his shapechanging abilities as the study of an older style of magic that could grant him massive physical strength, something important to him as he was fairly sickly and was the black sheep of a noble family of skilled warriors. Maybe not sticking to traditional D&D assumptions is "bad roleplaying" to you, but I favor fidelity to my character's personal vision over D&D tropes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There are no "supposed to cast" spells.

That's what it sounded like you were saying, glad to hear it's not the case.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Maybe not sticking to traditional D&D assumptions is "bad roleplaying" to you, but I favor fidelity to my character's personal vision over D&D tropes.

That's not what I said at all. I was referring to people who take level dips without any consideration of how the roleplaying aspects of that class fit into the game, but only view classes as nothing more than stats with no other influence. I also never said it was "bad roleplaying". I'll repeat what I said, so maybe next time you don't put words in my mouth

Which is cool, if you choose to ignore those things....I wouldn't think it is a shocking revelation to assume that role playing is pretty important in a role playing game.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is cool, if you choose to ignore those things....I wouldn't think it is a shocking revelation to assume that role playing is pretty important in a role playing game.

It is, but choosing to maintain or reskin class flavor is merely a choice in styles of roleplaying, not the presence or absence of it. There's no superiority in making a character based on a narrative hook over a mechanical one.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It is, but choosing to maintain or reskin class flavor is merely a choice in styles of roleplaying, not the presence or absence of it. There's no superiority in making a character based on a narrative hook over a mechanical one.

You're saying it is shocking to assume role playing is important in a role playing game? bwuh? Are you even reading what I'm writing, because you keep arguing against things I've never remotely said or implied.

 

[TwoSix]

You're saying it is shocking to assume role playing is important in a role playing game? bwuh? Are you even reading what I'm writing, because you keep arguing against things I've never remotely said or implied.

Poorly phrased by me. Obviously, role-playing IS important in a role-playing game. But there's a broad scope of what people consider to be "role-playing". And even assuming a broad definition of role-playing, there are plenty of stylistic differences that people choose to consider "better" or "worse".

 

[Valetudo]

So if your running a light cleric, faerie fire or bless? That right there shows that there are other options that are on par. I think bless is right where it needs to be. A perfect spell to enhance the party for a class that isn't always a out self dps.

 

[famousringo]

So if your running a light cleric, faerie fire or bless? That right there shows that there are other options that are on par. I think bless is right where it needs to be. A perfect spell to enhance the party for a class that isn't always a out self dps.

Bless for sure, unless somebody else is covering it or I'm trying to counter invisibility. No saving throw, no concern for friendly fire (heh), improves defense and utility in addition to offense, covers a larger area and scales with a higher slot until you run out of friends. I wouldn't say FF is on par with Bless.

I'm not sure it needs fixing, either. It makes the point that cleric is a powerful support class right at level 1.

 

[Celtavian]

Then I recommend not making misleading claims as to how bless works. What you stated before made it seem like you were not aware of the various limitations bless has to mitigate it's constant benefits. Not to mention any implications that bless might somehow be an alpha choice in either of the other two pillars of play. Because that's just ridiculous. There are three pillars of play, BTW. Not just combat. Just sayin'.

I recommend not making misleading claims that a spell doesn't work exactly like its text says it works. Discussing the ways it can be countered and how a player can counter those means does not change how the spell text works and the average bonus of a D4.

So bless is broken because you play a mid-to-high level cleric who spent a great deal of their resources (multiple feats and a large chunk of their daily spell slot commitment) making it so? That's rather a self fulfilling prophecy you got there. I think I see the problem with the spell.

I'd like you to find where I said bless was broken. You must not have read the rest of my post to come to this conclusion, which makes you look pretty sad.

That's a huge difference in how we play D&D right there. We tend not to inform the DM how threatened we've decided we will allow our characters to be.

You don't? Then we do play very differently because I most definitely actively inform the DM where I plan to move, how I plan to avoid attack, and make a character capable of doing so with a party capable of doing so. So yes, I do inform the DM when I am avoiding being threatened and take the necessary measures to do so.

When I DM, I expect a player to do so as well because that's what players that want to achieve victory in battle and survive danger do. Players that don't take a proactive approach to avoiding being threatened by the DM tend to die in our campaigns.

I would request that you please quit trying to school me on how real players play D&D. I'm quite confident you have no idea the extent of system mastery/charop I am capable of. Heck, here is your open invitation to any of our Strategicon conventions, here in Los Angeles, if you'd like to see for yourself. We run a rather large gaming convention three times a year (in fact, one is coming up this President's Day weekend!). I'll put my system mastery and tactical play accumen up against yours any day (since you seem to want to make this a measuring contest). I welcome the challenge you keep not-so-subtly alluding to.

You welcome the challenge? I have no plan whatsoever to go to Los Angeles. I would gladly accept your challenge because as far as I can tell, you're having trouble keeping bless active for battles and my group isn't. So...not sure what's going on there if you're the tactical master you claim to be.

"Necessary"? That's rather an illusive claim, donchathink? "Better than"? Using what metric? I see several 1st-level clerical concentration spells that are very useful. In various scenarios, far more useful than bless. But then again, I didn't artificially limit spell choice to concentration when I was making my point. Spell slots are a daily resource. They don't care if the spell is concentration or not. Casting cure wounds uses the same slot bless does. Bless cannot do for the ally what [/i]cure wounds[/i] can. Ergo, the former cannot be universally a better choice than the latter. Nor can bless keep you from dying of dehydration in a desert devoid of water sources. But guess what? There's a 1st-level cleric spell, that isn't bless, that can. Rather than list an infinite number of other examples, I'll stop there.

So what? Bless is great in the most important battles. That's usually when we use it. Most other battles aren't challenging, so we don't waste much in terms of spell resources. We let the cantrips and martials do the work. As far as deserts and environment, one spell and one slot on the list handles that. Still plenty of room for bless. Just like having fly on the wizard list leaves plenty of room for fireball or other spells. You're not really making a point here.

Bless increases damage output and increases resistance to spells and effects that allow saves. That particular combination is more useful than most spells in the vast majority of situations. That is why it is an optimal tactical choice. A tactician would know this just as he would have a few other spells on his list like cure wounds or preferably healing word for those times he may need to pop an ally back on his feet. Since bless only uses a single 1st level slot, he would be able to do both casting them at the appropriate time.

That's great. I'm glad you enjoy playing in such a game, where the DM plays along and allows you the freedom to experience the kind of play you desire.

Does the DM play along or am I a powerful player character very capable of disrupting the DM's plans? I think it is the latter. Sure, the DM tries to challenge us in an appropriate matter. As you must know, being a tactical master, that a group building a party together, covering all their bases, is very hard to challenge. If your group is covering all their bases, then they'll have everything from scouting to healing to arcane support to heavy duty damage dealing. They'll utilize all these abilities in a highly concerted and tactical manner to eliminate your planned encounters. That puts most DM created encounters at a disadvantage because they will often lack all the resources a party has at their disposal.

But look. All of my considerable play experience, playing 5e with a great number of different people, runs counter to the claims you are making here. So now what? Can we at least stop pretending that your unique experiences and play style should be a basis for determining how the game should be designed and/or played?

Once again, I'd like you to go back and read my post, then you tell me where I said the game should be redesigned due to my play experiences.

You obviously read my post, made a bunch of assumptions, and started writing. I don't consider bless broken because I stated it is an extremely powerful and optimal spell that is easy to use.

You were obviously itching for a war of words. You made some ridiculous assumptions because you didn't read my post and started one. I have no interest in continuing one, especially one that isn't a debate but a misunderstanding.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I recommend not making misleading claims that a spell doesn't work exactly like its text says it works. Discussing the ways it can be countered and how a player can counter those means does not change how the spell text works and the average bonus of a D4.

The problem isn't that you averaged the d4 roll to a +2. It's not the part where you said three allies get such a benefit. It's that you said they get it to "all" of their attacks and saves. That's not the case. The spell just doesn't have that kind of staying power. Unless you are playing some aberrant playstyle, in which case D&D players by-and-large need not heed your observations. Since they are not relate-able.

You welcome the challenge? I have no plan whatsoever to go to Los Angeles. I would gladly accept your challenge because as far as I can tell, you're having trouble keeping bless active for battles and my group isn't. So...not sure what's going on there if you're the tactical master you claim to be.

Declination noted.

So what? Bless is great in the most important battles. That's usually when we use it. Most other battles aren't challenging, so we don't waste much in terms of spell resources. We let the cantrips and martials do the work. As far as deserts and environment, one spell and one slot on the list handles that. Still plenty of room for bless. Just like having fly on the wizard list leaves plenty of room for fireball or other spells.

This part right here. Bingo. At least you're finally backpedaling away from the absurd claim from, because bless is an available 1st level cleric spell, "three allies get +2 to all their attacks and saves", to just "sometimes". With the added acknowledgement that a cleric really doesn't have the spell slots to keep it up "all" the time for his buddies. That's all I really needed you to say.

K, thanks.