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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And how do you know that attack rolls were 'over-relied' upon?

Because the conclusion drawn from including an item that has no effect upon other forms of attack was a sweeping and general "game breaking", rather than a specific and accurate assessment along the lines of "Was circumstantially potent."

 

[jaelis]

And how do you know that attack rolls were 'over-relied' upon?

Because GX.sigma said: "It was impossible to hit him. For the rest of the campaign, he never got hit. It was literally game-breaking." From that I think it is reasonable to deduce that GX was relying too much on attack rolls to threaten the characters. If not, then why would the game have broken?

I would not conclude that GX was relying on attacks rolls more than I do, or more than I'd expect in a typical game. But evidently, they were relying to much on them for the situation at their table.

--
Hah well anyway on this topic AoB and I seem to be on the same page.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Again, you mistake me.

Perhaps in the future you might aim to be more clear? Because I genuinely had not considered that a post telling me how unhelpful I was and accusing me of saying something inappropriate (because it is entirely inappropriate for one poster to tell another "get good" or the equivalent), that also didn't provide any help on the topic I was being called unhelpful regarding, could possibly have any purpose but to tell me I'm posting inappropriately.

I did not necro it, and certainly not to quote you, so it seems you've again misjudged me.

I never said you were the one to necro it, and I'm not judging you as if you had.
My only judgement against you is that you have put us in a pot & kettle situation by insisting I am unhelpful as the entire subject of your contribution to the thread, which is itself unhelpful, especially given the context that whether you realized it or not this particular thread has been long dead and the person you view me as having slighted in some way has neither made their own complaints against me nor returned to post in the thread in all that time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because GX.sigma said: "It was impossible to hit him. For the rest of the campaign, he never got hit. It was literally game-breaking." From that I think it is reasonable to deduce that GX was relying too much on attack rolls to threaten the characters. If not, then why would the game have broken?

I would not conclude that GX was relying on attacks rolls more than I do, or more than I'd expect in a typical game. But evidently, they were relying to much on them for the situation at their table.

--
Hah well anyway on this topic AoB and I seem to be on the same page.

I'll address both here, then. Not ever being hit is game breaking, even if you do not "over-rely" on attack rolls. This is because it would take a serious divergence for attack rolls to NOT be the primary method of reducing hit points. A DM would have to go out of their way to select monsters/NPCs that do not rely on attack rolls, and there are very few that do this. Even dragons, the titular creature of the game, rely primarily on attack roles to reduce hitpoints. So the other path would be to reduce the impact of combat as a resolution mechanic, which is another departure from the baseline. No problem in choosing to play that way, of course, just noting that given the wealth of intended play examples in the official products over all editions, combat is THE primary conflict resolution mechanic. And, again, within combat, attack rolls are THE primary damage vector.

So, there exists a whole subset of games were you can include plenty of non-attack roll based damage and effects, and STILL have being nearly unhittable destablize the game. And this includes that idea that the DM can just pick monsters to offset the issue of build choices, as that's still a disruption of the game by changing the baselines in which the choices were made to begin with. IE, why would I have expended effort to acquire a clock of displacement if the game was going to change to one of only fighting enemy spellcasters with save only spells because I did so? Further, having to make such changes could dramatically affect the planned scope of the game. For instance, if you are running Storm King's, and this situation obtains, what's your solution? Giants clearly "over-rely" on attack rolls to reduce hitpoints.

So, yeah, the assumption that the DM didn't properly make choices to offset an unhittable character is a poor one -- you have no idea what happened, and your insistence that they did something like 'over-rely' is, itself, assumptive of bad practice.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Perhaps in the future you might aim to be more clear?

Physician, heal thyself.

Because I genuinely had not considered that a post telling me how unhelpful I was and accusing me of saying something inappropriate (because it is entirely inappropriate for one poster to tell another "get good" or the equivalent), that also didn't provide any help on the topic I was being called unhelpful regarding, could possibly have any purpose but to tell me I'm posting inappropriately.

I didn't consider that addressing the content of your posts and not your character would be seen as a personal attack upon you.

I never said you were the one to necro it, and I'm not judging you as if you had. My only judgement against you is that you have put us in a pot & kettle situation by insisting I am unhelpful as the entire subject of your contribution to the thread, which is itself unhelpful, especially given the context that whether you realized it or not this particular thread has been long dead and the person you view me as having slighted in some way has neither made their own complaints against me nor returned to post in the thread in all that time.

Ah, the 'no one else complained, so your complaints shouldn't be valid.' Don't buy it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Physician, heal thyself.

I am always striving to be more clear and to improve my ability to communicate. So maybe don't base whether or not you try something similar on the fact that you don't find me to be clear?

I didn't consider that addressing the content of your posts and not your character would be seen as a personal attack upon you.

You didn't address the content of my post; you addressed your assumptions of why my post had the content it had.

Ah, the 'no one else complained, so your complaints shouldn't be valid.' Don't buy it.

That is not at all what I said. Let me try it differently, for clarity:

By posting nothing but "You are unhelpful and I think you just told that guy to learn to play better" you have made an unhelpful post. You've been the pot, and have shouted out to me "Hey kettle, you are black." This is made more clear by way of the person you insist I wasn't helping not seeming to be present now to be helped even if you managed, while not actually yourself being helpful directly, to indirectly provide help to them by coaxing it out of me.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because the conclusion drawn from including an item that has no effect upon other forms of attack was a sweeping and general "game breaking", rather than a specific and accurate assessment along the lines of "Was circumstantially potent."

Yea. Items that give +2000 damage aren't game breaking either. The DM just has to make sure the player with that item either can't get off the attack or misses if he does. I mean the item has no effect on monsters that aren't being hit so all we can say is such an item is "circumstantially potent".

I call BS.

Item's can be overpowered and game breaking without being an instant "I win" button in every circumstance.

 

[jaelis]

I'll address both here, then. Not ever being hit is game breaking, even if you do not "over-rely" on attack rolls.

That seems a logical contradiction to me. If the game broke then you must have relied too much on attack rolls.

I think what you mean to say is that the game forces you to rely on attack rolls, so doing so is not a choice. However:

A DM would have to go out of their way to select monsters/NPCs that do not rely on attack rolls,

Yes, but the game certainly makes that possible. Even a dragon can grapple someone and drop them from high in the air. Attack rolls are certainly the "default" way to damage creatures, but they are not the only way.

So, yeah, the assumption that the DM didn't properly make choices to offset an unhittable character is a poor one -- you have no idea what happened, and your insistence that they did something like 'over-rely' is, itself, assumptive of bad practice.

It doesn't seem that way to me. If you choose to rely on attack rolls to threaten characters, then an unhittable character will break your game. You have options for other ways to threaten characters. Therefore the result comes from choices you made.

I think the proper conclusion to draw here would be that the cloak of displacement is powerful enough that the DM must take it strongly into account when designing encounters. And if true, I'd call it overpowered. But if you're in a situation where the item is in play, you can work around it without breaking the game.

 

[jaelis]

Items that give +2000 damage aren't game breaking either. The DM just has to make sure the player with that item either can't get off the attack or misses if he does. I mean the item has no effect on monsters that aren't being hit so all we can say is such an item is "circumstantially potent".

If you know ways to adjust things to compensate for such an item, without significantly changing the rules and keeping the game fun, then yes, such an item would not be game-breaking. I don't know a way to do those things though.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'll address both here, then. Not ever being hit is game breaking, even if you do not "over-rely" on attack rolls.

False.

This is because it would take a serious divergence for attack rolls to NOT be the primary method of reducing hit points.

False.

A DM would have to go out of their way to select monsters/NPCs that do not rely on attack rolls, and there are very few that do this. Even dragons, the titular creature of the game, rely primarily on attack roles to reduce hitpoints.

That's not actually as true as it might seem. Effects that don't rely on attack rolls, like the breath weapons of dragons, often do enough damage that they are the equivalent of being hit by numerous attacks, and thus can provide equal effect upon HP despite being used less often.

And a DM isn't "going out of there way" no matter what monsters they are using; it's already the DM's assumed task to select monster - there is no significant added effort in selecting one variety over another variety.

...over all editions, combat is THE primary conflict resolution mechanic.

That's not entirely true either. Some of the earlier editions operated in such a way that avoiding combat was the primary conflict resolution mechanic, given the ratio of risk to reward in doing so being the most favorable.

...the game was going to change to one of only fighting enemy spellcasters with save only spells...

You have just built a straw man. One need not use only sources of damage that rely on saving throws to achieve the goal of running a game that isn't broken by the inclusion of a cloak of displacement.

For instance, if you are running Storm King's, and this situation obtains, what's your solution?

My solution is to be aware that it is my choice to be running that adventure, my choice to be using the optional magic item rules, my choice not to alter any of its details whether that be what items are found or what spells/abilities the monsters have access to, and thus my choices that ultimately lead to this outcome. I would then choose to be perfectly fine with this item getting to shine so bright by being found/used in the best possible circumstances for it - And I wouldn't be making claims that appear to apply to all games, even those that don't involve the same choices having been made.

...your insistence that they did something like 'over-rely' is, itself, assumptive of bad practice.

Again, I've made no such "insistence." I stated what I think may have been the case in a way that, in the context of the thread, mentioned a potential fix for the problem. Much like one fisherman might tell another that is complaining it's impossible to get a bite, "Sounds like you should try some different bait."