D&D 5E L&L for November 18

[Ratskinner]

I actually think 13th Age has the best interpretation of Feats that I have seen in any D20 game - they function as 'top ups' to other skills or abilities and allow you to say 'my character is especially good at this thing' rather than presenting you with a long shopping list of mostly-dull minor abilities. Well worth looking at if you can.

Feats are just one example of the ways I think 13th Age went about things better than 5e seems to be going. ...of course, there's things that go the other direction, too.

 

[steeldragons]

Are you f==in' kidding me?! 13th Age uses Adventurer and Champion as its first two "tiers" of game play!?!?

grumble grumble...need to get this s--t published already...been working/tweaking it for years and there's stuff already using my ideas...grumble grumble...truly po'd.

 

[Bluenose]

You're not even going to mention the fact that the Rogue's stealth check is at-will while spells are a limited resource and the Invisibility spell has an opportunity cost to select? So you're balancing the classes under the assumption that spells are basically at-will abilities and attrition over the adventuring day is insignificant. Which means casters are going to suck hard in games where the DM actually puts pressure on the PCs.

I'm not interested in 5e wizards unless there is some simple yet dramatic houserule to make them more like classic MUs/wizards...like removing both the concentration mechanic and attack cantrips at the same time, or something.

You apparently see no need to mention that a Wizard picking Invisibility one day (when they want to sneak around) can pick Spider Climb the next day so they can climb things better. Or that there are bits of paper around that allow extra uses of either of those (and many other) abilities. Though obviously you won't be satisfied till casters get both the greater versatility and greater effectiveness that God intended for them.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'd like to point out that the example being bandied about isn't an apples to apples comparison. Invisibility does not grant stealth ability. It makes you invisible. Stealth is not being NOTICED. Not "not being seen". Invisibility does not affect the alertness of guards who should be both looking and listening for anything unusual around them. So perhaps in addition to giving you 100% concealment (or whatever it's called in DDN), it might give advantage to Stealth rolls. The invisible armored knight is still going to clang and bang as he walks invisibly past the guards.

Additionally, the level of the spell vs the level at which the ability is gained should have some play in prioritization. To say that a 9th level spell can't outshine a 1st level class ability seems silly.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd like to point out that the example being bandied about isn't an apples to apples comparison.

And I'd like to point out that the phrase "apples to apples" doesn't mean "the same in all respects". There would never be a need to compare things which were the same in all respects, and the very act of a comparison implies some differences to begin with. The phrase means "similar". It means you can compare a small sour green apple to a large sweet red apple because they're both apples despite some other variations. Invisibility and Stealth are applies to applies, as they both are used to avoid detection (both apples). They have variations like one including sound and the other not (different color), and one can be done at-will while the other requires a spell slot (different size), but it's still an apples to apples comparison because they both fall into the category of "things used to avoid detection".

 

[ccooke]

I'd like to point out that the example being bandied about isn't an apples to apples comparison. Invisibility does not grant stealth ability. It makes you invisible. Stealth is not being NOTICED. Not "not being seen". Invisibility does not affect the alertness of guards who should be both looking and listening for anything unusual around them. So perhaps in addition to giving you 100% concealment (or whatever it's called in DDN), it might give advantage to Stealth rolls. The invisible armored knight is still going to clang and bang as he walks invisibly past the guards.

Additionally, the level of the spell vs the level at which the ability is gained should have some play in prioritization. To say that a 9th level spell can't outshine a 1st level class ability seems silly.

The thing is, there's a difference between "Stealth" the design space (not being noticed, hiding, sneaking, ambushing, etc) and "Stealth" the skill. The L&L article is talking about design space over granular concepts. Think about all the ways that the Stealth design space can be addressed in the rules - off the top of my head, there are:

* How well you can hide
* When you can hide
* How you can be concealed
* What you can do if you aren't seen

The Stealth skill only deals with the first option, while the L&L article is talking about balancing the way all the different choices fit together.

So for instance, Halflings can hide when they're behind someone larger than they are. That makes them better at Stealth. Wood elves can hide if they're lightly obscured by natural stuff. Neither of these abilities are a bonus to the Stealth skill, but they're both balancable things in the Stealth design space.

The Rogue class gives you the ability to be proficient in the Stealth skill, to get a +5 bonus to Stealth at level 1 (via your choice in Expertise). It gives you things you can do with it (synergy with Sneak Attack) and the Cunning Action, which means you can hide more often. Both of the rogue subclasses give you abilities in the Stealth design space, although neither gives a flat bonus to the skill.

The Invisibility spell means you're always concealed. *If* you prepared it *and* you cast it in time *and* you don't move after casting it, it means you can be Stealthy without even making a Stealth skill check at all. If you move, you'll still need a check but unless things are quiet it will probably be an easy one. It's a good effect, but a lot less than the Stealth benefits a rogue gets at level 1.

Now, if the spellcaster takes a background with proficiency in the Stealth skill, that'll help. Adding the Mobile feat might help give you things to take advantage of being Stealthy (getting in and out of combat to hide again, for instance). The Hunter's Veil spell would be useful, too, along with Silence. Add all of that and you are probably better at being Stealthy than a level 1 Rogue.. Although you still don't have things like Sneak attack, and you've spent a lot more than a single class level to get it.

(And I managed to get through all that without saying anything about Not Being Seen... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltmMJntSfQI )

 

[jmucchiello]

And I'd like to point out that the phrase "apples to apples" doesn't mean "the same in all respects". There would never be a need to compare things which were the same in all respects, and the very act of a comparison implies some differences to begin with. The phrase means "similar". It means you can compare a small sour green apple to a large sweet red apple because they're both apples despite some other variations. Invisibility and Stealth are applies to applies, as they both are used to avoid detection (both apples). They have variations like one including sound and the other not (different color), and one can be done at-will while the other requires a spell slot (different size), but it's still an apples to apples comparison because they both fall into the category of "things used to avoid detection".

I disagree. Invisibility is not stealth. Invisibility is also not just a spell. Some creatures are invisible. The spell should work like the natural ability. The existence of Stealth as a skill or as a class ability or as a feat should not affect the in-game effect of "being invisible". The spell should grant the target the game effect of being invisible no matter whose toes this steps on in the "stealth" category.

Now, I don't think Mearls is saying they will nerf Invisibility for the sake of Stealth. At least I hope that's the point of the article. And I hope that is why he chose to compare apples to oranges.

 

[Mistwell]

I disagree. Invisibility is not stealth.

Right, you just made the error I was referring to. An apples to apples comparison is not a comparison between two identical things. You would never do an apples to apples comparison between X which is Y. There would be no point if X=Y to compare X to Y. An apples to apples comparison is comparing two SIMILAR (but not the same) things.

The Invisibility spell available to PCs is similar to the stealth skill and modifiers to those checks available to PCs, in that both are used by PCs to avoid detection. Hence, they are both apples.

Invisibility is also not just a spell.

Right, but we're comparing the spell to the skill here, as both are functions of character abilities. You could compare a ring of stealth to a ring of invisibility and that would be an apples to apples comparison as well. Or you could compare a creature with invisibility against a creature with stealth and get an apples to apples comparison that way too.

Some creatures are invisible. The spell should work like the natural ability.

Naw. This isn't 3e where monsters must function by the exact same rules as player characters. They can use an entirely different mechanic if they like. There is no need to compare it to the monster ability - we're comparing a PC spell to a PC skill.

The existence of Stealth as a skill or as a class ability or as a feat should not affect the in-game effect of "being invisible". The spell should grant the target the game effect of being invisible no matter whose toes this steps on in the "stealth" category.

It should affect the PC spell. I don't care about the monster ability, as that would not be an apples to apples comparison. But a PC spell and a PC skill and a PC feat are all apples to apples comparisons.

Now, I don't think Mearls is saying they will nerf Invisibility for the sake of Stealth. At least I hope that's the point of the article. And I hope that is why he chose to compare apples to oranges.

He compared them to apples, as I've explained. If you use that phrase to only refer to comparison of two identical things, it becomes meaningless.

 

[mcintma]

I'm not interested in 5e wizards unless there is some simple yet dramatic houserule to make them more like classic MUs/wizards...like removing both the concentration mechanic and attack cantrips at the same time, or something.

Those burned by LFQW will consider spells overpowered, no matter what they are nerfed down to in 5e. Which I suppose makes sense, but sucks for those who didn't experience the problem or actually want to play a spellcaster (as I've said elsewhere, in my no-HR PF campaign the problem is Paladins and Barbarians averaging 100+ damage/rd at 10th, and admittedly Druid but for the '24/7' Wildshape, not the spells).

 

[jmucchiello]

Right, you just made the error I was referring to.

I'm here to discuss a new edition of D&D. Your pedantry about what apples to apples means and how I've misused it is just annoying me. Please drop it.

Naw. This isn't 3e where monsters must function by the exact same rules as player characters. They can use an entirely different mechanic if they like. There is no need to compare it to the monster ability - we're comparing a PC spell to a PC skill.

I'm a simulationist. If there's a state called invisibility in the game it should work just one way. That was one of the good things about 3e. When the DM says "Invisible", regardless of source, you know what it freaking is.