D&D 5E (2014) How powerfull is a permanent blur item?

[jaelis]

Just to add to that, in a typical game with several players, a single one of them being unhittable is not that big a deal. It makes opponents focus fire on the other players. Especially if it visually obvious like a blur effect and heavy armor.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just to add to that, in a typical game with several players, a single one of them being unhittable is not that big a deal. It makes opponents focus fire on the other players. Especially if it visually obvious like a blur effect and heavy armor.

Why would it do that?

 

[jaelis]

Why would it do that?

Because most opponents are somewhat intelligent.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I would not call taking attack rolls to be a "single very specific circumstance". It's a general thing and it's going to happen a lot.

But the circumstances in which the cloak is in effect are not just "taking attack rolls" - it is only those times when taking attack rolls and the cloak hasn't been temporarily turned off by some means, such as taking damage whether it was from a lucky attack roll (I've already crit against my PCs twice while rolling with disadvantage just in the relatively brief time 5th edition has officially existed, for an (overly extreme) example of such lucky rolls) or a non-attack roll source, being made unable to move, or simply facing an opponent not affected by the illusion.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh I thought we were talking about permanent blur item. Not sometimes on sometimes off. I feel much better about sometimes in and sometimes off blur.

But the circumstances in which the cloak is in effect are not just "taking attack rolls" - it is only those times when taking attack rolls and the cloak hasn't been temporarily turned off by some means, such as taking damage whether it was from a lucky attack roll (I've already crit against my PCs twice while rolling with disadvantage just in the relatively brief time 5th edition has officially existed, for an (overly extreme) example of such lucky rolls) or a non-attack roll source, being made unable to move, or simply facing an opponent not affected by the illusion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

False.

False..

False.

False.

What fun! I like this game!

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.

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

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.

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. I generally hold it's the DM's job to select monsters that make sense for the story. Neither of us wins this argument. Let's not trot it out again.

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.

Nope. Avoidance of conflict is avoidance of conflict, not resolution, and no edition set the game up as 'sneak through the entire game' as the predominant conflict resolution system. D&D has had combat as it's central focus from the beginning. Doesn't mean you can't play it how you want, but the rules clearly reflect combat as the central assumption of what happens in a game. That you can, could, or should sneak past some encounters doesn't detract from this.

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.

The next solution set is much smaller, though, and adds even more disruption to the game. 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. 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. You can still run it, as you can run any broken game, but the distortion caused by the cloak is now evident in all of your decisions.

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.

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

 

[Ovinomancer]

How do you handle monsters with non-magic weapon resistance?

The same way everyone else does, I expect -- the monsters take half damage from non-magic weapons. Do you think there's a relationship between specific monsters having resistance to non-magical weapons and not being hit?

Do the players find a way to get magic weapons and use other tactics to deal with them?

In general, I think most games feature players getting magical weapons. I haven't had a game yet where players were saying they needed to quest for magical weapons so that they can kill something with resistance to non-magical weapons.

Also, if it does come up that they face a monster with resistance to non-magical weapons without having any, it's because I've placed a specific challenge (in a plotted game) and I've chosen the challenge to be reflective of their abilities. In my more sandboxy games, I telegraph such things so that players can make informed decisions. If they decide to go after werewolves with normal weapons, that's on them.

Or does that break the game?

Players looking for magical weapons, or resistance to non-magical weapons? No, for either. Resistance to NMWs is something that's an early game issue and is well dealt with by the ruleset. It effectively increases hitpoints for monsters that generally have lowish hitpoints for their level anyway (note the low CR monsters that have this, they typically have the hp of monsters a few CR below them because of the buff of resistance -- to players with magical weapons, they're pushovers).

Are Displacer Beasts completely broken?!?

No!11!eleven! Displacer beasts have low ACs (13 IIRC). This means their disadvantage inflicting trait bumps their ACs up a few points. Displacer beasts would be just about as deadly as they are if they had AC 15-16.

If something has a very high AC already, though, disadvantage is startlingly good. If your opponent needs a 5 to hit you, disadvantage imposes a difference of 20% in your hit rate (from 80% success to 65% success). If your opponent needs a 10 to hit you, disadvantage is roughly a 45% drop in chance to hit (30% chance with disadvantage, 55% normally). If your opponent needs a 15 to hit you, it's a 75% reduction (from 25% normally to just over 6% with disadvantage). If your opponent needs a 20 to hit you, the drop in chance to hit is 95%. That's 95% fewer hits than without disadvantage.

Displacement isn't an autowin, by any stretch, but it's effect on high AC characters is disproportionate.

In your encounter with Giants, have them attempt to grapple the Cloaked player. Have a dragon use it's Legendary Action Wing Attack to good effect. The MM is a good resource but monsters should be more than a rote set of actions in a stat block.

A giant grappling has to get into melee, which isn't hard, depending, but is a restriction, and has to sacrifice all of his actions to make the attempt, which, sadly due to the weird grapple rules, isn't automatic. Stone giants, as the only giants with athletics proficiency, are very decent at grappling. The others, not so much. A hill giant with a +5 strength against a +1 strength cleric (assume a high enough STR to wear heavy armor effectively) yields only an average 62% chance of success. A Storm Giant with +9 STR jumps that up to 80%. That's if the Cleric isn't proficient, doesn't have a higher STR, or doesn't anticipate grappling giants and avoids melee and/or casts Freedom of Movement (which completely eliminates grappling as a successful mechanic).

EDIT: disregard the numerical analysis here -- for some insane reason I forgot most giants are actually trained in athletics. The points on melee avoidance and FoM stand, the rest I retract.

You continue to beat the dead horse that the Cloak of Displacement is fundamentally broken as a reason to deny offered methods to deal with it.

Whoa, there. I've made no such claim. My only claim is that it could be broken, depending on many factors of gameplay. The assumption that the cloak CANNOT be broken is what I've argued against.

But it's not broken to any degree that many other means of magic are broken. In a game I played over the weekend we had to fight some invisible assassins and none of us had reliable methods of detecting them. They did a lot of damage but we adapted, improvised and overcame. It's what the game is about. Of course YMMV.

And I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't do so. I'm saying that the point at which you HAVE to for the majority of encounters to offset a magic item is a point at which you can easily have a broken game. When you're expending that much effort to counter something, the problem is large enough to address out of game instead of continuing to distort your game to accommodate it. An encounter, a series of encounters, or a recurring story element that requires adaptation or non-standard solutions isn't what I'm arguming against. That is, as you not, what the game is about. I'm arguing that a Cloak paired with a high AC character played remotely smartly can cause serious problems. And that smart player is going to anticipate your general solution set and offset his exposure. Not by chance, clerics are best positions to do this with a range of easy to achieve defenses against things like elemental damage (most save spells) or utility magic that obviates lockdowns.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just to add to that, in a typical game with several players, a single one of them being unhittable is not that big a deal. It makes opponents focus fire on the other players. Especially if it visually obvious like a blur effect and heavy armor.

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.

 

[Caliban]

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've found beholders to be a rather successful in game solution. They don't make attack rolls, their eye rays can't be counterspelled, portable anti-magic field, plus it flies. Just include one in every combat and you can just about guarantee damaging any player you want.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

....
And I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't do so. I'm saying that the point at which you HAVE to for the majority of encounters to offset a magic item is a point at which you can easily have a broken game. When you're expending that much effort to counter something, the problem is large enough to address out of game instead of continuing to distort your game to accommodate it. An encounter, a series of encounters, or a recurring story element that requires adaptation or non-standard solutions isn't what I'm arguming against. That is, as you not, what the game is about. I'm arguing that a Cloak paired with a high AC character played remotely smartly can cause serious problems. And that smart player is going to anticipate your general solution set and offset his exposure. Not by chance, clerics are best positions to do this with a range of easy to achieve defenses against things like elemental damage (most save spells) or utility magic that obviates lockdowns.

This is well put and I appreciate the response.

The flaw is that there are many powerful combinations in 5e that require some specialized thought and tactics to challenge. I ran into a paladin/sorc player recently who had Demon Armor, a +3 shield and the Staff of Power (19 + 5 + 2 = 26 AC) with access to Haste (+2AC) and Shield (+5 to AC), topping out at AC 33. Where do we start drawing lines on what's "broken" and instead decide that DMing monsters needs to be more than, "What's your AC? [roll dice]?"