Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 9502539" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Because whether or not I personally consider it degenerate depends more on how silly the tactic is, and less on how much damage output it causes. Hence, I consider the move-the-cleric-every-turn tactic more degenerate than I consider party full of Clerics, regardless of relative damage output.No grappling required if you're (ab)using the controlled mount rules. The (probably small-sized) Cleric sits on the back of the mount, and an adjcaent character spends half their move to hop on and take control, resetting the mount's initiative. The mount Dashes, causing the Cleric to zap all enemies within range, while the controlling character uses their action for whatever they want, ending the mounts's movement adjacent to the next PC in initiative. The character controlling the mount then spends the other half of their move to dismount (or to fall off and then stand back up, depending on how that table reads the rules). The next character then repeats the process. On their own turn the Cleric moves to the front position and takes control themselves, zaps everyone when the mount dashes, takes their own action, then moves to the back of the mount. It's only n zaps per enemy instead of n+1, but it doesn't cost any actions or attacks. And the dashing mount probably has a much higher speed than a grappling character, permitting one to hit more enemies.I entirely agree that the degenerate moving-the-cleric tactic works best with more clerics. I still think it's degenerate even with a single cleric.I would rule the damage stacks, but the movement speed reduction does not stack. But there's definitely ambiguity there, and if the DM rules that the damage isn't cumulative, the wagon-full-of-clerics idea doesn't work and we're back to hauling around a single cleric on a mount.And to be absolutely clear, I'm not advocating for a DM to allow any version of this tactic to work. I don't want that to get lost in the back-and-forth!</blockquote>

Verification