Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8252214" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I'll be honest man, we are really getting into the territory of "You are either cheating or stupid for how you play" and this is getting a bit tedious. You are trying to argue multiple different points, and then when I reply to those different points, you make it sound like I am arguing a single scenario with multiple different mutually exclusive things going on. So, how about we go back to this a little bit. I'm still going to respond to your most recent post, because I believe in responding to people, but try and do this one thing. Break the game with BoD on a Monk. Give me something that is so powerful to justify this attunement. All you've tried to do for days now is show how shields are stupid and people who use them are dumb. Try something different. Show me the power of this item that makes it deserve attunement.Like who? There is not a Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, Monk, Cleric, Artificer, Druid, or Bard that is going to ask for someone else to cast Mage Armor on them. And while the rogue might have a reason for Mage Armor, they are going to be costing another player their spell slots. Because remember, the Warlock is a self-only casting. So, you are going to have a wizard who takes mage armor, only to either cast it twice (taking two slots per day) or cast it only on the rogue? Look, AC boosting is good, but there are a lot of assumptions you are making about either a lot of party cooperation (the wizard casting mage armor on the rogue) or easy access to spell scrolls for an Arcane Trickster. I mean, "The Arcane Trickster likes BoD because they have a backpack full of scrolls of Mage Armor" is a lot of assumptions.Thousands? Are you talking about Plate that is 1500? That isn't Thousands. Also, other than the disadvantage on stealth there is no opportunity cost or downside to plate. And, while I've been trying to avoid talking too much about magic items, since you are wanting to claim a lifetime supply of Mage Armor scrolls...Mithral Armor. It is only an additional 500 gold (max, it could be less) and it doesn't impose disadvantage on stealth. It is also said to be lighter, though there wasn't anything given about that. So, there you go the biggest drawback you keep pointing out is gone. This is a major boost to the armor surely... oh yeah, it is free. No attunement. Funny how that keeps working.Also, again, while you are correct that a fighter using a shield is giving up damage in the form of a two-handed weapon, if the fight ends or before the fight begins, they can choose to swap their shield for a bigger sword. This is a loadout cost, while the Warlock can only change their invocations when they gain a level. That is... rather much less common than "do we have 12 seconds?"I don't care if a barbarian has a +25 to stealth. It doesn't matter when they charge into the room roaring and swinging their weapons. Sure, Barbarians can be good at stealth, that is fairly obvious, but most people I've encountered who play barbarians aren't playing a character that uses stealth. There are negatives. Spell slots. Eldritch invocations. Planning on buying dozens or hundreds of scrolls. You keep acting like there must be one correct answer, and if you can say "but stealth" then it means you are right. But, some groups don't bother with stealth. Or, if they have a rogue, the rogue stealths ahead and the rest follow. But, giving up half your spell slots as a plan for +1 AC... might not be worth it. That is going to be a hard sell unless you don't want to have spells as a subclass built around getting spells.1 pt of average damage, after I've already killed one enemy and heavily injured a second, in a fight with 4 enemies and I likely have allies who are doing things. (Remember, Phandelver was your call, and they didn't have more than 4 or 6 goblins. Four more likely because the recommended party size is 4)Yeah, that single round that the combat is going to last is really going to hurt for my losing 1 point of damage.Those words are not "So outdoors you players can normally only see 30 feet ahead and the enemy can only see 30 feet?" Also, the words you are quoting were in reference to you saying "and usually several more turns during the battle if there are multiple foes." Which, referred to your earlier and primary example of having killed one enemy, then not being able to reach a second to use your second attack. That situation, where the battle has started, we are in melee, I have killed an enemy, and the next closest enemy is more than 30 ft away (which is all required for your "you lose your attack because you wore a shield" argument) doesn't happen very often.It depends on the situation. How we treat each combat is going to depend on what is going on, how close we can get, and what our goals are. But, I don't think I have seen a first turn, ever, where we did zero attacks and the enemy hit us. Except maybe the occasional hostage crisis.Because all grappling does is make a melee enemy stay next to you and attack you, which they were likely going to do anyways. You are giving up an attack to guarantee the most likely outcome, and if you were wrong and they were going to run, that is a second attack.Two potential attacks to draw attacks towards you... not a great trade.Anyone who has goblins rush in instead of using Guerilla warfare is going easy on their players. You don't need to charge past a fighter to use a bow. Also, we've never fought Duergar, not once, so the invisibility hasn't come up. Drow could use darkness, but they also can't see through it, and my groups LOVE Devil Sight, so, that isn't a guarantee either. Generally they end up opening with Faerie Fire, potential advantage on all attacks is better than trying to run past us to gank the mage. I didn't list specific undead because I didn't really see much difference between Ghoul, Zombie, or Skeleton. You are most likely referring to incorporeal undead, which do take damage for staying in walls and floors. Plus, they can't see out of them. Not that we haven't had some harrowing fights against those types of enemies, but again, if the enemy is willing to dive into the floor, take damage and be unable to see or affect us... I'll take that. Ready a spell for when they pop back out and keep moving back. If they stay in the floor, more damage.1 attack vs 1 attack1 attack vs 1 attackGrapple vs 1 attack2 attacks vs 3 attacks. It is the same concept as card advantage.I'm sorry... how is your rogue getting two attacks? Grappling is an action, so you don't get SA any turn that you grapple and pull them away. So, are you saying you already had them grappled before this cycle even started? Well, that was a wasted SA. Also, how are you guaranteeing that the Barbarian goes, then you go, then the enemy goes? Is this the only enemy on the field? Why is no one else involved? The barbarian is badly hurt, and you are a melee rogue, so shouldn't you be pretty hurt too? You've got far less defense, so killing you is likely a good move. And readying to hit the barbarian if they only have a single attack instead of a multi-attack is a great plan, how do you counter that? Have the barbarian lose his rage? Sure, it is nice if it happens exactly like you say, but there was a lot of set-up to create this scenario, with the barbarian already injured, a single enemy, you at near full health and already grappling them, and the initiative working in your favor. That is a lot of conditionals.  If only there was an item, like a lamp, and it needed oil to create light. So people could see. Maybe... oh that's exactly why oil is in the game. For lighting lamps. Of which they made three varieties.Ah yes, enemies who are too stupid to get out of flammable oil when you are carrying sources of flame. Or have a wizard. Well, at least that initiative is always on your side to allow the flames to be lit before the enemy can move.By level 5, a fighter can be reliably dealing 2d8+12 with a longsword. That is 21 damage. With no subclass features and no action surge. (Yes, I'm counting Dueling Style. That is the go to style with Sword and Board. I have seen people take Defensive, but generally less often)Rogue has 1d8+4+3d6 = 19Also the rogue is making a single attack, while the fighter is making two. So, if the rogue misses, zero damage. If the fighter misses, then they might hit on the second attack for 10.5 damage. So, I doubt the rogue averages more DPR.</blockquote>

Verification