D&D 5E How powerfull is a permanent blur item?

[Ovinomancer]

Sounds like the problem was over-reliance on reducing the character's hit points by way of attack rolls, rather than the doesn't-actually-apply-against-everything benefit of blur and plate armor.

Actually, the problem here is that you weren't part of GX.Sigma's game, and have no idea what actually happened or what difficulties he faced. Suggesting another poster could just play better isn't helpful. If you wanted to be helpful, perhaps you could have taken the time to list alternatives, such as grappling or saving throws or adjusting the goals of play to remove reliance on combat as a primary resolution path, instead of just implying that GX.Sigma didn't do a good job running their game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...and have no idea what actually happened or what difficulties he faced.

You might note that I made no claim to the contrary.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

DM discretion, certainly. Truesight allows you to "automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them". And the cloak is a visual illusion, so the DM can decide that Truesight does more than detect the displacement effect, it negates it. However RAW the only thing that negates its' effect is damaging the user.

RAW is meaningless in 5E, if you try to play by RAW you're going to have a bad time.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

RAW is meaningless in 5E, if you try to play by RAW you're going to have a bad time.

Like I said, DM discretion. However it's always good to know what the RAW is and why you're implementing a change.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You might note that I made no claim to the contrary.

Yet, you chastised his issues. Your objection isn't.

 

[jaelis]

Like I said, DM discretion. However it's always good to know what the RAW is and why you're implementing a change.

RAW says truesight lets you see invisible creatures and automatically detect visual illusions.
RAW says a cloak of displacement projects an illusion that makes you to be in a different place, and that the illusion causes attacks to have disadvantage.

I think you can make a fine case that, RAW, truesight defeats a cloak of displacement. There is a solid chain of deduction to that conclusion. I don't think RAW has to mean "explicit," otherwise it would be too limited to be useful.

Which isn't to say everyone would or should play that way with the cloak. But I bet most DMs would.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yet, you chastised his issues.

I didn't "chastise" anyone for anything.

Your objection isn't.

...what?

 

[Plaguescarred]

How powerfull is a permanent blur item? Specifically on +1 leather armor but it seems way overpowered for any item.

It's powerful but not game breaking, as it's not always working, ceasing to benefit you as soon as the attacker somehow has disadvantage already, if it doesn’t rely on sight (i.e blindsight, tremorsense etc) or can see through illusions (i.e truesight). It's benefit is also greatly reduced if the attacker has advantage.

But otherwise when disadvantage is in effect the penalty to hit varies going up to +5 depending on the number http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/


Yan
D&D Playtester

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually, the problem here is that you weren't part of GX.Sigma's game, and have no idea what actually happened or what difficulties he faced. Suggesting another poster could just play better isn't helpful. If you wanted to be helpful, perhaps you could have taken the time to list alternatives, such as grappling or saving throws or adjusting the goals of play to remove reliance on combat as a primary resolution path, instead of just implying that GX.Sigma didn't do a good job running their game.

Don't mind suggestions that only boil down to you're playing the game wrong.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Don't mind suggestions that only boil down to you're playing the game wrong.

Which wasn't actually what I was suggesting, but hey, who needs facts, right?