D&D 5E Not Much Ado About Bless

[James Gasik]

Has anyone said that? That what is fun for you is wrong? Really?



But you aren't just saying that the game isn't for you. It's not a big deal if the game doesn't work for you, it can't work for everyone in existence. The fact that you keep insisting that because it doesn't work for you it is therefore a poor quality game is the issue. I enjoy the game. I think it's the best version of the game ever released, even if it does still have it's share of warts. Insisting that my thinking the game is of high quality and fun is somehow wrong is the problem.

Meanwhile absolutely no one is telling you that you are wrong not to like something millions of other people enjoy. They're just rejecting the idea that it's low quality because you don't get to define quality for every other individual.

You know, I don't think I ever said I think the game is bad quality because it doesn't do what I want. I just wish it did. If I'm somehow conveying that impression, I don't really see it, but please, just take it from me, I'm not attacking the quality of the game. I'm not telling people that they are wrong. I'm simply saying "I don't see why X is true and Y is false".

That's it. That's all. There's no ulterior motive. This isn't a thread about trying to somehow undermine the game. I felt like I was led to believe that "bounded accuracy" meant one thing, and saw what seemed to be discrepancies.

So I questioned them. That's how critical thinking works- you ask questions. I'm not defining quality, I'm trying to define quality for me and those who might have similar feelings to me.

Point to any time I said "you shouldn't play 5e". I'll wait. Point to any time I said "nobody should play this game because it sucks". I'll wait.

If you pore over my posts, what you will see is frustration with WotC and how they built this game in such a way that is spawns endless arguments about how things are meant to work. That there is no consensus where two people who run different styles of games can look at a given rules element and say "so is this like this, or is this like that?".

That in many cases, they didn't complete the game, and left it up to the players. And how at one point, that confused me, because why leave a game mostly finished, and then say "hey you can figure this out on your own" and ask people to pay for that privilege?

Or why people feel empowered by 5e as DM's because they can change things. Which has been true in every version of D&D ever, as thousands upon thousands of pages of house rules for various campaigns totally exist.

My questioning of these things can't possibly detract from your enjoyment of the game. How could it? If you like things a certain way, you say so. And you have. But that I don't immediately go "ah, yes, of course, I see now, it's liked so I am in error" is an attack on your enjoyment? Your fun?

I'm just a guy on the internet. I have an opinion, just like everyone else does. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's perfectly fine. My opinion can't hurt anyone!

And if you think it can, well, that's a very unique point of view.

 

[James Gasik]

See I very much disagree. Command, for example can completely shut down an opponent for a round, forcing it to move through opportunity attacks (which count at least as much as a single round of a bless bonus) and plug something way out of position.

Granted it’s language dependent but it is a hugely impactful spell.

Just as a single example.

Well don't forget the Bless bonus applies to three targets. So shut down 1 opponent vs. a potential 5-20% bonus on attack rolls per attack made for 3 characters over the course of 1 minute (or less if the Cleric does lose concentration).

Most fights don't need this kind of duration, and I rather doubt a Bless can last into 2 fights. But it comes down to how many attack rolls are made, and how impactful that 12.5% bonus on attack rolls is.

Statistically, I think it can have a large impact, but the prevailing opinion (which I have no doubts about, really) is that only very careful bookkeeping can reveal how many attacks the spell makes available over a long period of time, and other concentration spells that Cleric can cast can make a more immediate and noticeable impact.

If I should play more Clerics, I'll still keep using it, but I do now understand why it isn't more popular.

 

[Mistwell]

Well don't forget the Bless bonus applies to three targets. So shut down 1 opponent vs. a potential 5-20% bonus on attack rolls per attack made for 3 characters over the course of 1 minute (or less if the Cleric does lose concentration).

Most fights don't need this kind of duration, and I rather doubt a Bless can last into 2 fights. But it comes down to how many attack rolls are made, and how impactful that 12.5% bonus on attack rolls is.

Statistically, I think it can have a large impact, but the prevailing opinion (which I have no doubts about, really) is that only very careful bookkeeping can reveal how many attacks the spell makes available over a long period of time, and other concentration spells that Cleric can cast can make a more immediate and noticeable impact.

If I should play more Clerics, I'll still keep using it, but I do now understand why it isn't more popular.

In our games we have an NPC that casts bless often. We tend to find it changes a miss into a hit about 1.33 times per combat. Is that worth your spell slot and concentration slot rather than a cleric attack? Sometimes. But generally not beyond 5th level or so.

 

[Audiomancer]

In our games we have an NPC that casts bless often. We tend to find it changes a miss into a hit about 1.33 times per combat. Is that worth your spell slot and concentration slot rather than a cleric attack? Sometimes. But generally not beyond 5th level or so.

This lines up pretty well with my experience. I’m playing a Cleric in a game that’s now at level 5/6. Most of the other characters are reasonably well-optimized and have magic weapons. IME, Bless isn’t all that useful, or game-breaking, when you’re already adding a +3 proficiency bonus, +4/5 stat bonus, and magic-item bonus. I’ve been through several combats where Bless didn’t change the outcome of a single attack or save. If anything, I’ve probably had more impact using Blindness to impose Disadvantage on the biggest enemy.

 

[Hussar]

Well don't forget the Bless bonus applies to three targets. So shut down 1 opponent vs. a potential 5-20% bonus on attack rolls per attack made for 3 characters over the course of 1 minute (or less if the Cleric does lose concentration).

Most fights don't need this kind of duration, and I rather doubt a Bless can last into 2 fights. But it comes down to how many attack rolls are made, and how impactful that 12.5% bonus on attack rolls is.

Statistically, I think it can have a large impact, but the prevailing opinion (which I have no doubts about, really) is that only very careful bookkeeping can reveal how many attacks the spell makes available over a long period of time, and other concentration spells that Cleric can cast can make a more immediate and noticeable impact.

If I should play more Clerics, I'll still keep using it, but I do now understand why it isn't more popular.

I looked at the other thread, and there are some serious issues with the examination. First off, it only talks about the difference a +1 makes in isolation. The 3rd level fighter comparison does not take subclass into account, for example. There would be a much greater variance between a battle master and a champion in the same comparison that would completely overshadow the simple +1 from strength.

But, even in the example, IIRC, it's about 60;40. So, the higher strength fighter is winning some more, but, certainly not dominating. He's winning 10% more often when you remove all other variables.

I think you're looking at this as making far more of an impact than it is. Bless simply doesn't make that much of a difference that often. IIRC, even in the analysis in that other thread, it's equal to a +1 on Strength. Just not a big enough deal to worry about.

 

[James Gasik]

I guess it just comes down to a possibly faulty assumption. If accuracy bonuses are limited as a part of bounded accuracy's implementation, then any significant bonus to attack rolls must be good. I certainly found Archery Fighting Style to be amazing when I used it up until 11th level.

I mean, I've heard others claim that, as an example, magic weapons warp bounded accuracy in a significant way. I don't know if that's true, I'm not a math guy, but it is a complaint I've heard others make. Which is one of those things that leads me to wonder why X is bad and Y is good.

 

[Hussar]

People make a lot more about bounded accuracy than they need to.

BA basically means that you baseline success around 66%. By and large. Which means that if you add bonuses to hit, all you are going to do is go from 66% to, say, 80%. Who cares? It doesn't matter.

Think about it this way. If your fighter types never had to roll a hit. They just automatically hit every single attack, do you really think it would make a huge difference to the game? Your fighters are always running second place in total damage behind the casters. They can't possibly be doing more. Not at any significant level anyway.

I always make the same suggestion here. Track the total damages your PC's are doing for the next 20 or 30 rounds of combat. Not individual damage - damage total. So a fireball that hits four targets for 25 points each is a 100 point attack. Your fighter types (including ranger and paladin) are so far behind that it's not even close. Things like feats and magic items bring the fighter types up to par with the casters.

But, make no mistake, your fighter types are not even remotely competing with the casters. Which is okay. They don't have to. Casters are artillery. Dealing lots of damage is what they're supposed to do. It's baked right into the game. But worrying about the non-casters damage output is pretty pointless when the casters are so far ahead.

 

[Stoutstien]

See I very much disagree. Command, for example can completely shut down an opponent for a round, forcing it to move through opportunity attacks (which count at least as much as a single round of a bless bonus) and plug something way out of position.

Granted it’s language dependent but it is a hugely impactful spell.

Just as a single example.

Don't really have any way to compare them past the action/slot cost. Bless is one of those options that just work where command can singlehandedly end a challenge it do nothing. Does upcast well which is an other thing cleric spells tend to do. One of the reasons order domain is low key so good is the list of impactful spells they can drop as a bonus action.

 

[Mannahnin]

I tend to find Bless quite powerful. Between the attack bonus (2.5 average is a big boost, especially at low levels) and the save bonus it does a lot of work. Obviously less so if one's party doesn't have three characters who make attack rolls most rounds. But even with two attack-rollers and the Cleric getting it to help them make the Con saves I usually see it be very helpful.

Concentration is definitely what keeps it from being "broken" (ie: obligatory and constantly used) IME.

 

[ad_hoc]

I guess it just comes down to a possibly faulty assumption. If accuracy bonuses are limited as a part of bounded accuracy's implementation, then any significant bonus to attack rolls must be good. I certainly found Archery Fighting Style to be amazing when I used it up until 11th level.

I mean, I've heard others claim that, as an example, magic weapons warp bounded accuracy in a significant way. I don't know if that's true, I'm not a math guy, but it is a complaint I've heard others make. Which is one of those things that leads me to wonder why X is bad and Y is good.

One costs an action, concentration, and a spell slot.

The other does not.