SCAG Thread

[rczarnec]

Interesting, because while I wouldn't call it broken - here is an example of how a single spell from SCAG can be combined with existing rules to create an unintended result.

War Cleric + Magic Initiate

• Choose: Green-Flame Blade, Booming Blade, and Find Familiar with your feat.
• Divine Strike: 8th level War Cleric grants you Divine Strike.
• Green-Flame Blade + Divine Strike: 2d8+Str damage (one handed) or 1d8+2d6+Str damage (2-handed). Both primary and secondary target take an additional 1d8 fire damage. At 17th level, this maxes out at 3d8+Str damage (or 2d8+2d6+Str), plus an additional 3d8 fire damage to each target.
• Familiar (owl): By choosing an owl familiar, your Divine Strike GFB gains advantage (help action). Your owl has fly-by attack, and so avoids opportunity attacks.
• Channel Divinity: On the off chance you do miss, you can add a +10 to your hit bonus and likely hit anyway.

This took me very little effort to figure out, as stealing find familiar with MI has been an optimization strategy since day 1. I could take this combo a step further by adding GWM, allowing me to add an extra 10 damage on top if desired. Elemental Adept is unnecessary, as you simply switch to booming blade when facing targets immune/resistant to fire.

I could easily take this combo further by combining it with hex/hunter's mark, sneak attack, colossus slayer, or maneuvers (although doing so at the expense of cleric levels); and it wouldn't be very difficult for a later product to release a feature which takes this combo from powerful to broken. Alternatively, I could take 6 levels of Fire Sorcerer, and take MI (Sorcerer) instead; in which case I can also stack CHA damage on top.

One spell. That is the difference that one spell can make to an existing character.

I guess that I just don't see the problem here. You are talking about a 17th level War Cleric being able to do decent damage after spending all of those resources including a feat.


Prior to 17th you get this:
2d8+STR (average 14 with a 20STR)
1d8+2d6+STR (average 16.5 with a 20 STR)

Seriously? That is what has your panties in a bunch?

 

[kalani]

Never said I thought it was a problem. What I said was, it wouldn't take much to push it over the edge to the point where it becomes a problem. One or two additional options is all it would take. For example, a spell/feat which lets you cast a cantrip as a bonus action, or stacks another damage rider on top of DS and GFB without diluting the character through multiclassing.

As far as damage scaling goes, the combo scales by 1d8 every 3 levels (5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, and 17th levels). At 15th level (or higher), the character is free to multiclass to pick up additional damage riders if they desire, as they have hit the peak of their Divine Strike damage (but not GFB). Personally, I would still continue advancing as a Cleric to pick up 9th level spells, but the option to multiclass for 6 levels is there.

 

[Burticusb]

Again, I'm not upset about the ruling, it actually doesn't affect any my current character builds at all.

And I can appreciate the ruling given in the haste and pressure that was given to Adventurer's League.

However, the grounds of that this book was not play tested with this other book as the reason for the exclusion of them being able to be paired is silly to say the least. Trust me, there are for more colorful words I could use instead...
It actually shows a level of no confidence, in the staff or the dm's that this organization promotes.

I mean, your telling me that a DM shouldn't be capable of seeing these broken characters and be able to take the player to the side and explain that the players character is taking the fun away from other players.

Yes, pun pun was broken, so much so that he was a bore to play as and play with.

I think we are going the wrong way here, why not let the player explore the options.

And then offer some outside role play solutions to some of the encounters.

Allow the DM to take charge of his adventure and give the other characters a chance to rp out of a situation.

If a player based his character solely on mechanical advantages he will quickly find that this may not be the best medium to use for that venture.

 

[kalani]

Unfortunately no. When players in LFR showed up to the table, the DM was powerless to do anything about it (other than complain and hope the broken combo would get errata'ed). DMs in organized play don't have the same level of power as in a home game. They have to allow anything which is legal under the ruleset. Their own personal preferences, tastes, or ideas of "how things should work" mean little.

Were DMs granted the authority to ban things at their table, you will see abuse of such a rule -with DMs banning anything they disagree with, from dwarven wizards to entire races/classes/feats/etc. This would cause more problems than it solves.

For better or worse - rules as to what is/isn't allowed within an organized play campaign must be made globally. The Story Origin method might make players unhappy, but to date - it is the best solution I have seen to address these problems. In fact, I wished that the Story Origin mechanic (or something similar) existed in LG or LFR, as it would have helped solve 90% of the problems. There is also the fact that, "it is easier to loosen restrictions, than add them after the fact". If (in a year or two), it turns out that the Story Origin mechanic is too restrictive - it will be revisited, and the restriction loosened.

As is, I consider the ruling for SCAG to be a loosening of the restriction already, as it was added retroactively to all story origins. I expected it to be added only to the RoD story origin, with perhaps the Deity list added to all story origins.

In fact, my home games use a similar rule to Story Origins
And for the same reasons.... In my home games (dating back to 3.5), PCs can use the PHB and any two splatbooks of their choice when building and leveling their character. I found this rule helped prevent the majority of problems, while at the same time giving players freedom to make a character they wanted without imposing arbitrary restrictions based on my own taste preferences.

 

[darjr]

There was no haste. The exclusion rule has existed for at least a couple of seasons if not since the beginning. And remember the play testers would be VOLUNTEERS. And that play testing would get more and more complex with diminishing returns. Silly? Not in the least. It's a very profound and concise default that is ingenious. It kills so many birds with just a few sentences. Nips in the bud so many problems. Eliminates a lot of work for said volunteers. Is future proof because it works in the same way with the already spent effort into the future. There is so much upside to this rule.

 

[Burticusb]

There was no haste. The exclusion rule has existed for at least a couple of seasons if not since the beginning. And remember the play testers would be VOLUNTEERS. And that play testing would get more and more complex with diminishing returns. Silly? Not in the least. It's a very profound and concise default that is ingenious. It kills so many birds with just a few sentences. Nips in the bud so many problems. Eliminates a lot of work for said volunteers. Is future proof because it works in the same way with the already spent effort into the future. There is so much upside to this rule.

Well, I guess that settles it...

We are obviously exactly where we want to be...

I'm just so glad all those volunteers will have such an easier time now, instead of all of those rigorous complex hours that they would have had...

I mean gosh, just saying all official WoTC books are Legal just causes all sorts of play testing...

Seriously though, if it works well enough with core books, what horrendous concoction do you think will be made.

I get people are still butt hurt from 3.5 and the ridiculous splat books, but seriously, maybe instead of focusing soooo hard on play testing things, perhaps just empower your DM staff to make good judgements and give them the ability to allow or not allow something. Teach them to give flavorful options and steer the players away from munchkin' builds.

Anyways, not even sure why I'm trying to talk sense to you folks, obviously I just don't understand how the system works. And I should just be a good little soldier and tout the company line...

Besides...

"Top men" are on this... "top men"

 

[darjr]

Well, I guess that settles it...

We are obviously exactly where we want to be...

I'm just so glad all those volunteers will have such an easier time now, instead of all of those rigorous complex hours that they would have had...

I mean gosh, just saying all official WoTC books are Legal just causes all sorts of play testing...

Seriously though, if it works well enough with core books, what horrendous concoction do you think will be made.

I get people are still butt hurt from 3.5 and the ridiculous splat books, but seriously, maybe instead of focusing soooo hard on play testing things, perhaps just empower your DM staff to make good judgements and give them the ability to allow or not allow something. Teach them to give flavorful options and steer the players away from munchkin' builds.

Anyways, not even sure why I'm trying to talk sense to you folks, obviously I just don't understand how the system works. And I should just be a good little soldier and tout the company line...

Besides...

"Top men" are on this... "top men"

I would actually like your suggestion. If every DM could come to the table and make very similar conclusions about what is legal on the fly at the game table, then there wouldn't be a problem and this rule would be unnecessary. However, I don't think that's possible so we would have to go with a lot of back and forth, lists of unwanted combo's, and some grief as character builds are forced to change, on an increasing basis. Then there would also be the debates back and forth about what should be excluded or allowed at every line item on any list. Then of course there are the actual broken games that will happen because no one will know all the issues without some of them hitting the table.

Then before you know it we are right back to the issues the fore mentioned rule is trying to prevent.

Or the game could forgo all that and every event would have to include an increasing amount of time before play of DM's going over peoples log sheets and character sheets. Stars forbid if the DM disagrees with a prior DM's decision to the point that the player will have to rebuild their character in detail. I would not like that one bit. I also think the number of new DM's stepping up to run would decrease rapidly as more and more is added to the rules base.

As to what could happen with unintended rules consequences? I really can't say. At least without a fair bit of play testing, and then we're right back where we started, lists, rebuilds, increasingly rapid changing rulings, and diminishing returns as more books appear.

I do appreciate the work that the volunteers put in to run the AL, I can't thank them enough, I hope they think it's worth it. I also think many of them are experienced with the management of organized play and didn't make this decision lightly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a magic bullet, but I do think it's wise.

 

[pukunui]

Has there been any mention made of the default downtime lifestyle expenses levels for the new backgrounds in the SCAG?

 

[kalani]

Not as yet. I am still waiting on the answer to that question myself, but rest assured - once we (the campaign staff) know the answer; it will be shared with the public.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

Unfortunately no. When players in LFR showed up to the table, the DM was powerless to do anything about it (other than complain and hope the broken combo would get errata'ed). DMs in organized play don't have the same level of power as in a home game. They have to allow anything which is legal under the ruleset. Their own personal preferences, tastes, or ideas of "how things should work" mean little.

Were DMs granted the authority to ban things at their table, you will see abuse of such a rule -with DMs banning anything they disagree with, from dwarven wizards to entire races/classes/feats/etc. This would cause more problems than it solves.

For better or worse - rules as to what is/isn't allowed within an organized play campaign must be made globally. The Story Origin method might make players unhappy, but to date - it is the best solution I have seen to address these problems. In fact, I wished that the Story Origin mechanic (or something similar) existed in LG or LFR, as it would have helped solve 90% of the problems. There is also the fact that, "it is easier to loosen restrictions, than add them after the fact". If (in a year or two), it turns out that the Story Origin mechanic is too restrictive - it will be revisited, and the restriction loosened.

As is, I consider the ruling for SCAG to be a loosening of the restriction already, as it was added retroactively to all story origins. I expected it to be added only to the RoD story origin, with perhaps the Deity list added to all story origins.

In fact, my home games use a similar rule to Story Origins
And for the same reasons.... In my home games (dating back to 3.5), PCs can use the PHB and any two splatbooks of their choice when building and leveling their character. I found this rule helped prevent the majority of problems, while at the same time giving players freedom to make a character they wanted without imposing arbitrary restrictions based on my own taste preferences.

Even if your combo were more powerful than just building a character - and people have kinda shown that it's not, this rule wouldn't help with it. Because the rule allows the use of the full set of mechanics necessary to enact it.

Just like your 3.5 rule didn't help with 3.5 - what it did was put weapon-based characters further behind the curve, since they were the ones cherry-picking options from a dozen sources just to make their idea vaguely work while a Druid could outclass the vast majority of them with just the PHB and a Wizard was turning off entire encounters by closing their eyes and pointing at spells from their lists.

"Balance through broad restriction" has always been a losing game in WotC's version of D&D, so with 5e WotC's basic design just doesn't play it, instead achieving (something resembling) balance by just keeping various elements apart from each other.