This is a quote from Wildemont:I'm still telling you take a gander at those spells. Magnify Gravity for example, is just outright better than any other first-level AE damage spell.
Based on how WotC does plautesting, I have moral certitude that they have solid data about in-game performance.Flip that around and say "balanced" and "well-designed", and your statement is still true. People tend to think that the way something works for their table, is the way it works for everyone else's tables (or worse, the way it should work for everyone). Balanced or unbalanced, fun or not fun, etc. It's kind of pointless to argue about feelings and judgment calls like this. (And I'd try to avoid implying that my fellow readers aren't capable of understanding something.)
The way I look at it: the author feels the Echo Knight was balanced. The playtesters felt it was balanced. The editors and publishers felt it was balanced. So it's probably balanced. It sure doesn't feel that way to me, but my feelings are pretty unreliable.
Nonsense. If a creature swings at the ID, their weapon will go straight through it without the slightest resistance. If a DM rules they have to continue to treat it as the same as the PC after that, then that's ridiculous. Also, if a copy of the PC springs into existence whilst they can still see the PC, they have every reason to be suspicious of the copy.Also any DM that rules that you can spot the difference between “ A perfect Illusion” and the original, when the player is trying to cause doubt as to which is which, is lousy refereeing, to my mind.
That does not justify them being outright better than other spells. Otherwise every Wizard subclass could potentially have their own special spells which are better than other people's spells. That's literally not even argument about balance, merely access.Obviously, even with an effort to police balance between spells, some spells will be better than others. The spells you are referring to are clearly marked as Restricted.
I just don't believe that all these people actually look at the balance, sorry, and the fact that the Wizard subclasses are both "really solid/powerful Wizard subclass, which as a bonus has access to spells outright better than other ones in 5E", doesn't exactly scream "we did a great job on balance!".The way I look at it: the author feels the Echo Knight was balanced. The playtesters felt it was balanced. The editors and publishers felt it was balanced. So it's probably balanced. It sure doesn't feel that way to me, but my feelings are pretty unreliable.
I've taken a closer look at it: per the DMG chart, a multi-target Level 1 Spell that does half-damage on a asave would do 2d6, not 2d8, so that is more powerful on first blush. My hypothesis is that they started there, but found in actual play that the Constitution saving throw was too good on targets, so they adjusted upwards. Given what is known of the statistical, bog-data approach of the WotC private playtesting process, this seems most likely.I see no-one is willing to suggest Magnify Gravity is actually fine, which is interesting.
And what about the other two abilities, one of which is huge? Half movement is amazing for a 1st level spell. It's certainly more powerful than the 10' shove of Thunderwave (and doesn't have the 300' alert disadvantage, nor requires you to be in melee, and hits more targets).I've taken a closer look at it: per the DMG chart, a multi-target Level 1 Spell that does half-damage on a asave would do 2d6, not 2d8, so that is more powerful on first blush. My hypothesis is that they started there, but found in actual play that the Constitution saving throw was too good on targets, so they adjusted upwards. Given what is known of the statistical, bog-data approach of the WotC private playtesting process, this seems most likely.
28 millions character sheets, no matter the books, I would buy it but 28 millions that create Wildemount specific content, I think it is not possible. Not with a book with a 2 months old lifetime.I guess they calculate the numbers out of characters with Wildemount content activated, so the 28M is misleading, since it's the total number of active character sheets (I am only repeating what I read here in earlier threads about that site).
Please let us know how your second session with the Echo Knight character goes. I am curious to hear play reports on it.I have a group that just hit level 3 and one player is running a tiefling echo knight. I’m finding that the duplicate ability is REALLY powerful for a level 3 character. TBH it feels more like an ability you should get at level 5 or 6.
It’s also a little ill-defined. Can the duplicate speak? The character can attack from the duplicate’s position - can they take other actions? Open doors? Grapple? Pick something up?
The player has spent two sessions keeping her own character behind 3/4 cover while using her dupe to make ranged attacks and draw enemy fire. The dupe gets taken out regularly but the player just re-summons her the following round with a bonus action and attacks again.Please let us know how your second session with the Echo Knight character goes. I am curious to hear play reports on it.
I agree with you, that spell is more powerful than it should be for a 1st level spell. That feels more similar to the second level spell Shatter. Same range (60') same radius (10'), same save for half (Con), slightly worse damage type (Thunder is resisted more than Force), and better damage ( 3d8 vs 2d8) but no half-speed rider (which feels about like a d8 of damage in value) and roughly the same impact on unattached objects. That feels close enough to be firmly a 2nd level spell...but it's a 1st level one.I'm still telling you take a gander at those spells. Magnify Gravity for example, is just outright better than any other first-level AE damage spell. It's 60' range, 2d8 damage (CON save for half) in 10' radius centered on a point you choose (thus making it vastly easier to position than other low-level AE spells), aaaaand it halves the movement (halves, not -10' as you might expect, not even -15', halves) of creatures who fail the save, aaaaand all non-worn objects within the radius require a STR save (spell save DC) to pick up at all.
...In regards to the spells, quite simply Ruin, you have not made the case these spells are broken.
Some are overpowered, in my opinion. None at a glance, strike me as broken.
Hexblade/Pact of the Blade is pretty bad (even alone, Hexblade is bad - but Pact of the Blade alone is fine). I mean, I'm definitely not saying Echo Knight is the first or most overpowered thing in 5E. But it doesn't feel like it was the result of really hardcore playtesting or anything.The Echo Knight looks overpowered to me, but I doubt it'll top the Hexblade.
Let's be clear that @Todd Roybark is the one who compared them originally, and you, @jgsugden and claimed they were "comparable", so that's quite a thing to say.And once again - Invoke Duplicity is a very different beast in play. There are superficial similarities, but if you think them worthy of comparison, you lack a deep understanding of one or both of them.
Overall, I think the Echo power of the Echo Knight edges out the Invoke Duplicity power of the Cleric of Trickery.
Anything else is responses to that.They're comparable in utility.
So you never said it, you just implied it, am I getting that right?You won't be able to, because I said they were overpowered, not broken, explicitly!
I know you're the guide guy, but literally the first guide I found to Dunamancy spells had multiple ones rated in the top two categories, including four blue ones (though not Magnify Gravity, hilariously - maybe they just thing 1st level AE damage spells suck as a general thing).However, it's worth pointing out that you picked THE ONE AND ONLY SPELL WHICH WAS RANKED BLUE on the guides I've seen. For example, Treantmonk ranked all the other Duramancy spells as green, red, purple, or orange from that book except Magnify Gravity. Meaning you highlighted likely the exception to the overall rule that the spells in this sourcebook are pretty well balanced to kinda below average or situational.
No, I explicitly said otherwise and explained the difference in some detail. I think it's quite unfair that you'd make such a comment without reading the thread and seeing that I'd done that.So you never said it, you just implied it, am I getting that right?