Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9502541" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Maybe.&nbsp; I think if more people just realize another cleric is better than trying to move the cleric with the Barbarian then you won't really see grapple move the cleric this silliness in play, or at least only situationally, instead of all the time. Right, I'm analyzing grappling and mounts as separate cases.I will say this about mounts.&nbsp; Mount tactics aren't usually an effective long term strategy.&nbsp; Mounts die.&nbsp; They aren't always easy to readily replace.&nbsp; The faster ones aren't really cheap.&nbsp; So even if this technically works, I don't look for mounted spirit guardians clerics to become a big thing.I see the mounted movement rules as the sillier thing here and think most DM's would likely rule against it if the players tried to use that tactic more than once for anything.&nbsp; A simple, a mount cannot move more than it's speed once per round (or dash speed if dashing) most likely solves the silliness, and while it's technically a houserule, it's also a DMG encouraged one when it comes to rules exploits.IMO.&nbsp; 4 clerics not on mounts using reaction moves seems better there.&nbsp; 2x &gt; x.&nbsp; Also no worries about mounts dying.I am...A cleric proccing Spirit Guardians twice a turn, while using his action and reaction to move a 2nd time, is not too strong for damage.&nbsp; The investment tradeoffs on grapple moving the cleric is too high to make it generally useful.&nbsp; The ability to push enemies into the spirit guardians is too situational.&nbsp; None of this use cases are degenerate, or OP or anything bad IMO.On mounts...Having it proc 4 times due to the whole party being on a mount and not require any actions or reactions could be too much, but in actual play there's a ton of mitigating factors around this (mounts die, any ally wanting to melee means OA's come into play, party is clustered in fireball formation), as well as the possibility the DM nerfs the mount reset initiative exploit that's driving this combo.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9502541, member: 6795602"] Maybe. I think if more people just realize another cleric is better than trying to move the cleric with the Barbarian then you won't really see grapple move the cleric this silliness in play, or at least only situationally, instead of all the time. Right, I'm analyzing grappling and mounts as separate cases. I will say this about mounts. Mount tactics aren't usually an effective long term strategy. Mounts die. They aren't always easy to readily replace. The faster ones aren't really cheap. So even if this technically works, I don't look for mounted spirit guardians clerics to become a big thing. I see the mounted movement rules as the sillier thing here and think most DM's would likely rule against it if the players tried to use that tactic more than once for anything. A simple, a mount cannot move more than it's speed once per round (or dash speed if dashing) most likely solves the silliness, and while it's technically a houserule, it's also a DMG encouraged one when it comes to rules exploits. IMO. 4 clerics not on mounts using reaction moves seems better there. 2x > x. Also no worries about mounts dying. I am... A cleric proccing Spirit Guardians twice a turn, while using his action and reaction to move a 2nd time, is not too strong for damage. The investment tradeoffs on grapple moving the cleric is too high to make it generally useful. The ability to push enemies into the spirit guardians is too situational. None of this use cases are degenerate, or OP or anything bad IMO. On mounts... Having it proc 4 times due to the whole party being on a mount and not require any actions or reactions could be too much, but in actual play there's a ton of mitigating factors around this (mounts die, any ally wanting to melee means OA's come into play, party is clustered in fireball formation), as well as the possibility the DM nerfs the mount reset initiative exploit that's driving this combo. [/QUOTE]

Verification