D&D 5E Revision for the Blur spell

[Warmaster Horus]

The temptation for a DM to nerf a rule in search of balance can be very strong. Make sure to see if it's alright with the player using it, too. The rules of the game are a covenant between DM and players, something that can be changed if desired but when done so unilaterally can result in resentment. Honor your players' expectations, too.

 

[ccs]

I'll clearly do what I damn like. What I'm after here is feedback to help understand whether this is likely to be a good change, and if there could be a better direction to take it in.

I'd start by asking the people who's opinion actually matters - those you play with.

My own opinion is that Blur is not a problem, so your fix is unnecessary.

 

[clearstream]

I'd start by asking the people who's opinion actually matters - those you play with.

My own opinion is that Blur is not a problem, so your fix is unnecessary.

Note my post at end of page 1.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The cast in round one is well worth the protection and efficiency it yields. The game's maths makes it overly-favoured. It distorts the game at ACs above 20.

Most fights last like, maybe 3 rounds in 5E. This spell isn't an issue. Plus your fix slows the game. Great, now I need to make a save to make an attack. Which even if the target fails and gets disadvantage, might have no impact anyways.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For background - this discussion stems from the bladesinger thread, where a high rolled stat bladesinger can have AC's in the low 20's pretty much from the start. Given the general attack bonuses for monsters of appropriate CRs, the net effect is that the monsters will only hit on high rolls of the d20. Given the extremely distorting effect of disadvantage on low probability rolls (it's inverse-square, not linear). This means the if you normally have a 40% chance to hit, with disadvantage you have a 16% chance to hit; if you have a 30% chance, with disad you have 9%; with 20% it's 4% chance to hit. If you only hit on a 20, you have a 0.25% chance to hit.

In that context, and given that the damage output of appropriate CR creatures always exeeds bladesinger hp by the DMG chart (unless the wizard has a +3 Con bonus, then it tracks), an optimum strategy for high AC bladesingers is to use a round to cast blur -- especially given that most encounters do not start in melee range.

As noted, the problem doesn't really lie with blur, which is awesome in certain cases, but has a utility cost for most casters well below that threshold. The problem really only obtains with high AC, Tier I and II bladesingers, who can internalize the combo. That requires excellent rolled stats, however, which is less common than assumed in the analysis. Still, the corrective action should be limited to the bladesinger ability suite rather than the spell.

A suggested fix was to nerf the concentration bonus from INT to proficiency, which reduces the impact of high stats, and to restrict the advantage to acrobatics to only those checks involving movement, which reduces the additional defense to non-AC attacks (shove, grapple). Those two smaller changes increase the chance of losing blur when struck AND remove the high chance of avoidance for shove and grapple, both of which are counters to disadvantged attacks against AC.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, 5E is easy-mode as its baseline. So rolling stats, using feats, or even using basic tactics skew that even further towards the PC's. Coming to grips with that is the first step of understanding 5E's balance.

If a change is needed, I'd alter bladesong itself to require a melee attack action to initiate. That way you at least have to melee the first round to get it going as opposed to being a standard wizard waving a sword at range.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It looks like the saving throw is made after the creature has committed to taking the attack (or multi-attack) action, which presents an interesting choice for enemies. In general, the strength of the Blur spell is that enemies would not make an attack at Disadvantage if they had any more viable options at hand, but here they don't know whether they have Disadvantage until after they decide to go through with the first attack. This effect makes the spellcaster less tempting of a target, but not quite to the same degree as the original version of the spell. Much like with the Shield spell, it encourages enemies to waste one attack on the wizard, and then change targets if that doesn't work out.

In general, I feel like this change is unnecessary, because the spellcaster wasn't going to be a preferred target with either version of the spell. Of course, I never really saw the appeal of the spell in the first place, since it takes an entire action to cast, and that's a third of the actions you have for that combat. Maybe it sees more use at your table, if the party is frequently in a position to buff before combat because they know enemies will appear within the next thirty seconds. If your goal is to make the spell so unappealing that nobody casts it, then it would be easier to just ban the spell outright.

 

[Nostalgia Ward]

Casting time is Action. That means if you didnt precast it, you are out for 1st rouns.

Lasts one minute only. That is only one encounter.

Concentration spell.

No need to reduce in power.

Sent from my SM-J320F using EN World mobile app

I like this idea. Applying some sort of penalty or nerfing the power of the spell with consequences, rather than a power reduction makes sense to me.

 

[thethain]

Blur can be countered by darkness/fog cloud/heavy smoke. If the problem is people rolled stats and started with 18 dex and 18 Int, and they grabbed Bladesinger (because who wouldn't?) then the problem is bladesinger,or rolling for stats, but probably not blur.

 

[Jaelommiss]

I said it in the last thread and I'll say it again: a problem that can be solved by a generous application of dragons is an opportunity, not a problem.