D&D 5E Legends & Lore 7/21/14

[Mistwell]

One nitpick: Advantage is worth +5 at most; it's effectively +1 to +5, depending on the base odds of success. But yeah, War Caster looks really good for certain character concepts, but it's certainly not an auto-pick.

I disagree with your nitpick. Here is the math, and +5 is a reasonable average (as that's what it falls at for a 50-50 shot). You could also say it's +4 to +5, but I think it's quite misrepresentative to say it's +1 to +5, as the instances it's +1 are quite rare, and we're trying to represent averages.

 

[jrowland]

I disagree with your nitpick. Here is the math, and +5 is a reasonable average (as that's what it falls at for a 50-50 shot). You could also say it's +4 to +5, but I think it's quite misrepresentative to say it's +1 to +5, as the instances it's +1 are quite rare, and we're trying to represent averages.

He did say "...depending on the base odds of success" which to me indicates he is well aware of the math and therefore isn't "misrepresentative" especially in the context of a concentration check where the DC could easily require a nat20 (ie outside the typical range of 7 to 15).

 

[Dausuul]

He did say "...depending on the base odds of success" which to me indicates he is well aware of the math and therefore isn't "misrepresentative" especially in the context of a concentration check where the DC could easily require a nat20 (ie outside the typical range of 7 to 15).

As a nitpick, it's legit. As a serious objection, it ain't. For the required roll to exceed 15, you need to take damage in one hit equal to at least 32 + twice your Con bonus. That's not unheard-of, but it's quite rare. To require a natural twenty, you have to take damage equal to 40 + twice your Con bonus. If you're taking hits like that on a regular basis, maintaining concentration is the least of your problems.

On the other hand, the required roll can never be less than 5, since your Con bonus can't exceed +5 and the DC has a floor of 10.

In the vast majority of cases, advantage is going to be worth somewhere between +4 and +5 on the roll.

 

[Mort]

My newest player created his mage character before we learned about the current feats (we used the last playtest version which had tough but did not have warcaster).

He picked tough.

I'm going to present him the option to change feats if he wishes. I suspect it will be a tough decision.

He had to make 4 concentration checks in his first session (joined the group on the middle of a siege) and advantage would have likely helped 2 of them. That said, without tough, I believe he would have fallen unconscious and possibly died.

This player is extremely analytical, will be interesting to see which way he goes.

 

[Samurai]

Further dump one or two dump stats in exchange for a feat? Who wouldn't take that deal? I agree that it sounds flavorful, but it does up the power level just a bit. (Which is fine if you're cognizant of it.)

A slight power increase in exchange for greater variety of beginning characters is something I'm fine with, but for those that aren't, you could include the following: "If you choose this option, you must take the attribute increase and not a feat during your first opportunity." This would mean such a character doesn't get any more feats than another character in the long run, he simply gets it 4 levels earlier, and then makes up the attribute points at 4th level when other characters may be choosing a feat..

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

First, note that at high levels, Resilient (Con) will help your concentration
Saves more than War Caster will. (Although at high levels you might have both.

Second, if you don't like the human with +1 to everything but also don't like feats, congratulations, you're the Vegan with a soy allergy at the table. But since we know 1 feat = 2 stats, why not just give humans 4 stats total (max +2 in any one attribute)?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Also, if we're sharing from the leak, I think it's important to note that Sentinel is the new version of Tactical Defender or whatever from the Playtest. It has three effects:

1. Hitting with an opportunity attack stops enemy movement that turn.
2. Adjacent creatures provoke Opportunity attacks even when they Disengage.
3. When an adjacent enemy attacks someone else you can attack them as a reaction.

A lot of people are worried that the 5e fighter isn't sticky; this feat means a level 1 human Fighter is almost as sticky as in 4e. Grain of salt, of course, because the leak is way out of date.

 

[occam]

A slight power increase in exchange for greater variety of beginning characters is something I'm fine with, but for those that aren't, you could include the following: "If you choose this option, you must take the attribute increase and not a feat during your first opportunity." This would mean such a character doesn't get any more feats than another character in the long run, he simply gets it 4 levels earlier, and then makes up the attribute points at 4th level when other characters may be choosing a feat..

That doesn't address the point, which is that offered the option to drop two points on ability scores, you can drop those on dump stats; "requiring" that they later add two points to their main stats isn't a counterbalance. If you want everyone to take a feat at 1st level, it'd be easier to just give it to them as a bonus.

 

[occam]

As a nitpick, it's legit. As a serious objection, it ain't. For the required roll to exceed 15, you need to take damage in one hit equal to at least 32 + twice your Con bonus. That's not unheard-of, but it's quite rare. To require a natural twenty, you have to take damage equal to 40 + twice your Con bonus. If you're taking hits like that on a regular basis, maintaining concentration is the least of your problems.

On the other hand, the required roll can never be less than 5, since your Con bonus can't exceed +5 and the DC has a floor of 10.

In the vast majority of cases, advantage is going to be worth somewhere between +4 and +5 on the roll.

It wasn't presented as a serious objection; I was actually agreeing with Mistwell's main point, which some seem to have missed (including Mistwell!). However, calling advantage a +5 bonus isn't really accurate, and I was just pointing that out before stating my overall agreement. Thus, nitpick.