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

[jgsugden]

If I wanted to make balanced versions of Blurring studded leather armor:

Uncommon - You can cast blur once per short rest (1 minute, no concentration). Otherwise just like non-magical armor.
Rare - +1 Armor, when you are subject to a critical hit, unless the attacker is immune to illusions, the armor forces a reroll and grants blur for 1 minute (no concentration)
Very Rare - +1 Armor, Blurs until the start of your next turn whenever you are hit (no impact on the attack that hit you, but impacts all future attacks until the start of your next turn).
Legendary - +1 Armor, Blur all the Time

 

[jaelis]

This isn't a decent solution. If the character is unhittable to the point of you, as DM, deciding that enemies won't attack him, you're 1) punishing the hard to hit character's player by not engaging what he's worked hard to generate and 2) punishing the rest of the party with increased attacks on their characters because of the unhittable character.

Again, in game solutions to meta-problems is the least successful method. Sure, it could work for you, but your game would likely be better if you addressed the underlying source of the problem rather than generating these other issues with your solutions.

I think that you and I must have a different definition of "broken." It sounds like you feel the game is broken if the DM has to take the player's abilities into account in what they do. I'd say it's broken if you can't have fun while playing by the rules. So I guess we are just arguing a cross purposes here.

But to address your specific point, it is ridiculous to me to claim that it is metagaming and unacceptable to have monsters decide to attack the player that looks the easiest to hit.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

(nevermind, redundant)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What fun! I like this game!

It's not a game. You phrased your statements as facts when they weren't facts. That makes them false statements.

They also happen less often. For instance, a dragon may only be able to breathe once in an encounter. So, not exactly evidence.

You've literally just said something I already said as if it were a counter-point to the point I was making... I said even though they happen less often they deal equal damage to a larger number of other attacks, so they are still equal in the regard of their effect upon HP totals and you just went "Nuh uh, they happen less often."

Yeah, we've been down this road. I'm well aware that you think it's the DM's job to select monsters specifically to offset player abilities.

That's not a road I've ever been down, as that's not a statement I've ever made, nor even a thought I've ever had.

There is a big difference between it being the DM's job to select monsters - full stop - and it being a good idea for the DM to select a variety - full stop - and "it's the DM's job to select monsters specifically to offset player abilities." In fact, it'd be more accurate to say that what I think is it is the DM's job to select monsters so that they don't specifically enhance player character abilities to unreasonable levels.

The more you distort your game by using more and more non-standard attacks, the more you're allowing the cloak to dictate your game.

That's just the thing; when you say "distort your game" what you are talking about is an end resulting game that not one thing in the entire history of D&D and table-top RPGs actually prevents from being the normal state of someone's game.

You say "distort" because you are talking about making a different choice than you used to choose - like you can't ever do anything differently just because it seems like it more readily achieves the goals you have for your game-play experience, you have to stick to whatever choices you originally made because you don't want to "distort" your game.

At the point in which you're making selections primarily on the basis of defeating the cloak, or even largely on that basis, I'd say your game is broken by the cloak.

Anecdotally speaking, I'm not making any of my selections primarily on the basis of defeating any particular item, trait, feature, or whatever other word might apply to a portion of the game - I'm making my selections on the basis of a thoroughly mixed bag of tricks providing the most consistent entertainment value to me and my players.

Right, so, because you'd be fine with whatever obtains, everyone else has to share that opinion?

Not exactly. I'm not telling anyone they have to share my opinion, or my choices. I'm telling them they need to be aware of the choices they make, accept the consequences of the choices they make, and find a way to make the choices that lead to their desired outcome.

Beside, don't you claim that it's your job to pick monsters to offset player abilities that are distorting? This doesn't seem to line up.

It doesn't line up because I've not made the claim you are trying to attribute to me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think that you and I must have a different definition of "broken." It sounds like you feel the game is broken if the DM has to take the player's abilities into account in what they do. I'd say it's broken if you can't have fun while playing by the rules. So I guess we are just arguing a cross purposes here.

But to address your specific point, it is ridiculous to me to claim that it is metagaming and unacceptable to have monsters decide to attack the player that looks the easiest to hit.

1) I do not feel that the game is broken if the DM takes player abilities into account. I feel it's broken when the DM is offsetting player abilities that he feels are troublesome to a more normal (for them) selection method. I certainly feel it's broken when the DM is making such choices on a regular basis in regards to specific abilities (that aren't part of the normal leveling process, clearly taking into account players can fly or teleport is wise).

2) if you establish this as how your world works ahead of time, sure. If you change the way your monsters react because Bob the Cleric gets a cloak of displacement and becomes too hard to hit, then no, it's not good metagaming. It's moving the consequences of a problem with one player to the other players.

 

[Caliban]

1)
2) if you establish this as how your world works ahead of time, sure. If you change the way your monsters react because Bob the Cleric gets a cloak of displacement and becomes too hard to hit, then no, it's not good metagaming. It's moving the consequences of a problem with one player to the other players.

I think Jaelis was referring to a situation where one of the players has a visual "tell" that would indicate they are harder to hit - specifically things like Blur and/or plate mail. In that case, intelligent opponents would likely choose to target less armored, non-blurry targets first.

A cloak of displacement doesn't have an immediate visual tell, but most opponents figure it out pretty quick and may choose to change targets once they do. Or switch to a different attack mode if they have one available.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not a game. You phrased your statements as facts when they weren't facts. That makes them false statements.

You usually need to do some work to show they're false, though. Just yelling 'false' isn't enough, which is why I thought you playing a game.

You've literally just said something I already said as if it were a counter-point to the point I was making... I said even though they happen less often they deal equal damage to a larger number of other attacks, so they are still equal in the regard of their effect upon HP totals and you just went "Nuh uh, they happen less often."

No, you misunderstand me. Dragons breath deals about the same damage as the dragon's 1 round melee routine. If the dragon can't successfully melee and has to rely on breathing, the damage over time drops significantly. Occasional breath weapons do not make up for an inability to melee.

That's not a road I've ever been down, as that's not a statement I've ever made, nor even a thought I've ever had.

There is a big difference between it being the DM's job to select monsters - full stop - and it being a good idea for the DM to select a variety - full stop - and "it's the DM's job to select monsters specifically to offset player abilities." In fact, it'd be more accurate to say that what I think is it is the DM's job to select monsters so that they don't specifically enhance player character abilities to unreasonable levels.

Wow, that last sentence is doing a LOT of work. You just said exactly what I was saying you said, you just tried really, really hard to phrase it differently. But, please, explain the actual difference between selecting monsters to offset a troublesome ability and not selecting monsters that help a troublesome ability be more effective? It appears to me that the monsters selected will come from the same subset of things that work well against the ability, yeah? In which case, your defense is semantic?

That's just the thing; when you say "distort your game" what you are talking about is an end resulting game that not one thing in the entire history of D&D and table-top RPGs actually prevents from being the normal state of someone's game.

And, if it's your 'normal' state, there won't be any disruption. If, for instance, you normally select enemies for the players that are effective against cloaks of displacement and use limited melee routines, then there will be no distortion to your game if you continue it. But, if you didn't do this before a cloak shows up, and start doing it after, then you have distorted your game because of the cloak. I'm not discussing 'normal' as some hobby-wide benchmark, I'm discussing 'normal' as within the same game. If you make changes to the way your world presents because of troublesome character abilities, you're engaged in the behavior I'm discussing.

You say "distort" because you are talking about making a different choice than you used to choose - like you can't ever do anything differently just because it seems like it more readily achieves the goals you have for your game-play experience, you have to stick to whatever choices you originally made because you don't want to "distort" your game.

Of course you can make different choices, but the why matters. If you're making new choices because that player with the cloak is impossible to hit and you add things to offset that, you are specifically reacting to change your game solely to offset that new ability. New abilities shouldn't be offset, they should be incorporated. If you find yourself making changes to offset an ability, you're just moving the problem around, not solving it.

Anecdotally speaking, I'm not making any of my selections primarily on the basis of defeating any particular item, trait, feature, or whatever other word might apply to a portion of the game - I'm making my selections on the basis of a thoroughly mixed bag of tricks providing the most consistent entertainment value to me and my players.

I believe you, but your suggestion to anyone who complains about a troublesome combination or ability is 'hey, you pick the monsters, what's the problem?' When pressed you stick to the fact that picking the monsters is the DM's prerogative, and picking monsters to offset an ability is just fine, game as intended. My point is that picking monsters to offset player choices is bad metagaming -- if there's a problem you find yourself offsetting, you need to deal with the problem, not move it into a different space and pretend you fixed it. Picking monsters for variety is outstanding! I highly recommend the practice. Picking monsters because they work against specific abilities of your players is outstanding, if done sparingly. I highly recommend the practice. Picking monsters to work against a particular player ability you find problematic, but offsettable if you pick the right monsters isn't outstanding, it's hiding a problem better dealt with directly. Because moving it to the monsters means that other players will now deal with the problem of your monsters selections.

Not exactly. I'm not telling anyone they have to share my opinion, or my choices. I'm telling them they need to be aware of the choices they make, accept the consequences of the choices they make, and find a way to make the choices that lead to their desired outcome.
It doesn't line up because I've not made the claim you are trying to attribute to me.

I've never seen you state this this way. Not once, across three other thread that discussed this issue. But, as much as I agree with that phrasing, you're still stating that the best way to deal with those consequences is inside the game, by changing post facto the baseline that the choice was made within. That just moves the problem and allows you to pat yourself on the back for fixing a problem by moving it somewhere less visible.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think Jaelis was referring to a situation where one of the players has a visual "tell" that would indicate they are harder to hit - specifically things like Blur and/or plate mail. In that case, intelligent opponents would likely choose to target less armored, non-blurry targets first.

A cloak of displacement doesn't have an immediate visual tell, but most opponents figure it out pretty quick and may choose to change targets once they do. Or switch to a different attack mode if they have one available.

No problem with smart opponents figuring out new tactics, or forewarned opponents having effective ones. I encourage that. But if you recognize that a player's AC+other stuff means they can't be hit and then change how you, the DM, target to deal with that, that's bad mojo. If it makes sense in game for enemies to adapt, great, but coming up with new and interesting explanations for that adaptation that weren't there prior is still just moving the problem. In this case, to the other players.

Look, I get this is a narrow point. Metagaming is necessary. As I said in another thread, there's before the fact metagaming and after the fact metagaming. Before the fact is the kind of metagaming where you're crafting enemies and deciding things before the players are involved. This is where you make a few choices knowing they'll be a challenge for your player's because of their character's abilities. You set it up, then telegraph it, then let the players make choices that engage it. After the fact (post facto) is where you make the change because of the player choices. Maybe you set up a fight with fire mages, but they found some clues or made some deductions or just guessed and got some fire protection, so you change it to ice mages so that they're still surprised. That's bad metagaming.

In this case, if you have bad guys that are smart and adapt, and you pick them ahead of time (before the player gets a cloak), then great, they're clearly working as intended. If, however, you make the change so that you have many more smart bad guys that always seem to cotton on quick and adapt, or pick a slate of monsters that bypass AC, and you do it because Bob got a cloak and the other enemies aren't cutting it, that's bad metagaming. You're moving the problem around from Bob having an ability that's disruptive to your side of the screen and having disruptive bad guys. You should, instead, engage Bob's player and the rest of your party, explain the problem, seek solutions and consensus (or, failing that, issue a ruling), and then move on in a game with fewer disruptions. Moving the problem to monster selection is always a bad call.

 

[CM]

The cloak of displacement in my game operates on a recharge mechanic. After its displacement is cancelled, it reactivates on a roll of 5 or 6 at the start of your turn.

It's one option for a less-powerful version.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The cloak of displacement in my game operates on a recharge mechanic. After its displacement is cancelled, it reactivates on a roll of 5 or 6 at the start of your turn.

It's one option for a less-powerful version.

That's a good one. I also like having to activate it per normal magic rules and the effect lasting 1 minute. 3 charges, regains 1 per day.