Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8254460" data-attributes="member: 6801228">"Breaks the Game" is usually a phrase used for something being too powerful. It is incredibly difficult to "prove" that something breaks the game by being too weak, especially when that thing is an optional rule that doesn't even necessarily apply.I have demonstrated why it is too weak, not matching up to the level of similar items, and narrowly useful. Which, were my arguments from the beginning about why it should be changed. This isn't really something I can demonstrate again but differently, and in rebuttal nearly your entire point from beginning to end has been "Using Shields is a terrible idea, and armor is heavy"Having collected 1500 gold over a series of adventures spanning multiple weeks is very different than spending 100 gold every single day. Even if you are assuming the party is making a lot of money, they aren't doing so every single day, and they are spending it on other things as well.Here, let me put it another way. Over a 3- month adventuring cycle, Plate Armor costs you 1,500g gp. Buying a scroll of MAge Armor for every day costs 90,000 gp.Oh, and I know, but just buy a Staff of Defense. A rare item, same value as the Bracers of Defense, also requires attunement. Know what is funny about that? The staff grants +1 AC, mage armor on the Rogue  is +1 AC over studded leather. That is +2 AC... the same bonus as the Bracers, and if this is being used by a mage they can also cast mage armor on themselves, that is another +3 ACSo, on one hand we have an item that is granting +2 AC for attunement, and on the other we have an item that is the same rartiy and supposed strength granting +4 AC to the party, and still has 4 castings of Shield. Same Rarity, both require attunement, but it is rather clear which is better isn't it?Just because you haven't had it means nothing.If you are optimized for one thing, you might not be optimized for a different thing! Please, tell me more. Are trees made of wood?But, what you are purposefully missing, is that if you are choosing to swap your loadout before the fight, it is because even being unoptimized for the new loadout, you believe it will still be more effective than your current loadout. That is why you switch loadouts. Additionally, if you would be so terrible at it that it isn't worth switching, then you don't switch.So, please stop trying to act like this is some terrible trap. It is an option, for free, and takes at most 12 seconds.People role-play. Not my place to call them stupid for it. It is also stupid to loudly challenge them to honorable combat, doesn't mean I haven't seen people do it.Requiring specific party compositions make the position weaker when arguing against a position that requires no specific party composition.IF you have a wizard and if you have Bracers of Defense then you can have a Rogue with 15+Dex ACIF you have a Rogue, they can have a 12+Dex AC. Maybe buy some better armorDo you notice how these AOOs keep stacking? Now we have an enemy taking two additional attacks. Oh, and look, you got an enemy to attack your rogue (the exact thing you wanted) without needing to grapple them.Yes, enemies might prevent you from doing what you want, that doesn't make the AOO worthless.And where exactly do you want him?I guess you are relying on there being a caster, with an AOE effect that you have safely dragged the enemy into to hold them against it. Because with just a Rogue and a Barbarian... there isn't really any difference where the enemy stands without those sort of spell effects in play.And I'm pointing out that enemies aren't generally running away. That is why it is called a fight, not a chase.So he "attacked". Sure, he didn't take the attack action, but that is gaming Jargon. He took an offensive action that directly resulted in direct damage. It just had a different rolling schematic instead of him rolling against AC.You have a barbarian at 30% hp, attacking a dangerous enemy that he can't end his turn next to, and he isn't Raging?Man, no wonder you like grappling so much if you don't use class abilities meant to protect you from damage.In better shape than the barbarian who has used all of their rages and lost more hp than your entire hp pool.... somehow.2.5 damage on the action immediately, unless the enemy wastes an action to wipe it off. So, over 4 turns that does 10 damage.Oil does 5 damage if the enemy doesn't choose to step 5 ft to the left, and you were able to use a second action to light it.Do I really need to break this down?Turn 1 -> GrappleTurn 2-> Pour OilTurn 3 -> Light oil for 5 damage.Clearly this is superior high level play. I have no idea why I would think that this greatness could be topped byTurn 1-> Shortsword attack for 1d6+3 (6 damage)Turn 2-> Shortsword attack for 1d6+3 (6 damage)Turn 3-> Shortsword attack for 1d6+3 (6 damage)I forgot prof increase, but I want you to stop and think about this.I was assuming the rogue always had advantage and always had sneak attack. For the rogue, that changes my miss and hit by 5%. So, 31% to miss entirely, with advantage on every single attack. Now, again, I'm not sure where the Fighter math breaks down, it seems like you are assuming both attack hit is a subset within at least one attack hitting, but I'm fairly certain that isn't how that math works. Running late for work, so I can't check that.But, the rogue with sneak attack is doing the same average damage as a fighter hitting with both attacks. So, the rogue needs to hit every other time, if the fighter is hitting every single attack. But if on the miss turns the fighter is still hitting once... they are pulling ahead.Edit: I just realized that a flat 5% is inaccurate for the double attack, but seriously, this debate is barely even worth having. It is making a lot of assumptions just to prove that fighters deal less damage, which I again doubt is true and certainly never matches with my experiences</blockquote>

Verification