log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Shadow Sorcerer + Warcaster + Polearm Master + Eye of Darkness = Is It insane?

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
At some point, I think it would be interesting to discuss the preferences people have for different kinds of rules; for example, some people enjoy very crunchy rules for character creation, but don't enjoy getting that bogged down in rules during actual play.
That’s me!
Of course, the crunchier the character creation, usually the crunchier to overall play. Something to think about ...
True, but I do think it’s possible, due to the asymmetrical nature of the game, to have rules that are crunchier on the player-facing side than they are on the GM-facing side, and that’s something I’d hope to see more of moving forward.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
It takes an action to equip or unequip a shield. It's probably the most overlooked of all the more simple and straightforward rules in the PHB but it's in there. Very frustrating to anyone who imagines they just have a center-griped shield rather than a strapped to the forearm shield and who wants to be able to do the moment mid-combat where they throw their shield aside to double-hand their versatile weapon, but I think you've discovered why it is a rule.
My quick fix for that is to say center-gripped shields can be equipped as an object interaction but can be disarmed just like weapons, whereas shields secured by enarms can’t be disarmed but take an action to don or doff like armor.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
True, but I do think it’s possible, due to the asymmetrical nature of the game, to have rules that are crunchier on the player-facing side than they are on the GM-facing side, and that’s something I’d hope to see more of moving forward.

Interesting.

I have to admit, I'm drawing a blank envisioning this right now. But I'd be curious to see you elaborate on this at some point - a system that both provides a lot of player-facing crunch, but minimal GM rules.
 

Nefermandias

Adventurer
My quick fix for that is to say center-gripped shields can be equipped as an object interaction but can be disarmed just like weapons, whereas shields secured by enarms can’t be disarmed but take an action to don or doff like armor.
From time to time I catch myself considering homebrewing center grip shields, but no matter how I look at that, they are always going to be a stronger option compared to arm strapped ones.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
From time to time I catch myself considering homebrewing center grip shields, but no matter how I look at that, they are always going to be a stronger option compared to arm strapped ones.
Well, the ability to have the shield disarmed is potentially a pretty big drawback, if monsters actually take advantage of it. Otherwise, you could rule that blocking with a center grip shield uses your reaction, a la the Parry feature on several monsters.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Interesting.

I have to admit, I'm drawing a blank envisioning this right now. But I'd be curious to see you elaborate on this at some point - a system that both provides a lot of player-facing crunch, but minimal GM rules.
Well, I mean, look at something like PF2. That has loads of crunch facing in both directions, but a lot of the GM-facing crunch is superfluous, and really only exists because of a commitment to player-GM symmetry. You don’t really need that complex chart for setting DCs or all the various typed modifiers. Just by removing level from proficiency bonuses you could easily port bounded accuracy into it from 5e, and make the dice formula d20 + ability mod + proficiency vs. DC instead of d20 + ability mod + proficiency + level + circumstantial bonus + equipment bonus - circumstantial penalty vs. DC. Monster stay blocks could be made far simpler. A lot of things outside of combat could be streamlined to be handled by the fundamental pattern of play instead of having their own codified actions to cover. But keep the fun ancestry, class, and general feats players get to choose from each level. Lots of room for the character building mini-game, without too many cumbersome general rules for the GM to have to manage.
 


ECMO3

Adventurer
Melee
Bonus action: The Hound that attacks the enemy with advantage (pack tatics) and flanking and DC 13 for prone. 10average damage
Move 15 fts. ......Remember that It has advantage with pack tatics and flanking add +2 on attack roll.

The hound does not have advantage because it is in darkness and can't see. That cancels the advantage.

Also Flanking does not add +2. If you use the optional flanking rules it grants advantage which the hound can not get due to being blinded.

Remember that one disadvantage cancels all advantages. So if the hound is attacking a prone (advantage), flanked (advantage), pack tactics (advantage), while unseen (advantage) but the hound can't see the enemy himself (disadvantage) ...... That makes it a straight up roll without advantage or disadvantage.

Finally, even though he is in darkness the enemy can attack the hound without disadvantage and if he readies an action he can attack your horse without disadvantage. Even from the prone position, he can make these attacks without disadvantage as the horse and the hound can not see him.


..... the Hound's Oportunity attack that can prone him).

Bonus action: Quicken Empowered triple advantage Scorching Ray for average 34 damage

It is not possible to get advantage on the quickened scorching ray if they enemy is prone. Being prone imposes disadvantage on attacks from greater than 5 feet away and using a ranged attack from closer than 5 feet also causes disadvantage. This means no matter what you do, you can't get advantage on scorching ray if the enemy is prone.

If you use scorching ray from outside 5 feet the disadvantage for being prone cancels the advantage for being unseen.

If you use scorching ray from inside 5 feet, the disadvantage for using a ranged attack with an enemy within 5 feet cancels the advantage for prone and the advantage for being unseen.

Now if you cast fireball with the hound next to him, then yes he would have disadvantage on the save.

Invisibility Spell +7 Stealth check with Sorcerer's Magical Guidance (Better than Advantage) and Darkvision 120ft.
All enemies see 60ft on darkness, but the Shadow Sorcerer see 120ft. So, you have triple advantage against enemies that can't see you.
It's a reliable Stealth Character and really effective on natural darkness.

Level 8, get feat for Expertise on Stealth checks. It's an insane +12 Stealth Check, with Sorcerer's Magical Guidance, It's still more insane.

It's a scary character.

I don't know how you get to +12 stealth at level 8. With expertise and a 20 dexterity it is +11, that is the maximum you could have by level 8 and to do that with point buy you would have needed to start with a 17 or 18 Dexterity and take a dedxterity ASI at level 4.

A 11th-level Rogue is going to routinely have a +13 stealth, and he can't possibly roll lower than a 10 which means the minimum he can possibly roll is 23. If he rolls two natural 1s with disadvantage his stealth roll is still 23! That is without using any spell or sorcery points at all. The average stealth roll for that Rogue will be 26 and that is with no feat, no spell and no magical guidance boost. He can do that all day long. It can't be lower than 23, so even if you put the Rogue at disadvantage on the roll the average only drops to 24.

If your 11th level sorcerer has a 16 dexterity and you have expertise in stealth from a feat and are running invisibility and you burn sorcery points for magical guidance you will average 27, only 1 point better using a 2nd level spell slot and a sorcery point and the downside is a lot worse if you get poor rolls.

Finally the Horse you are riding on has a 0 stealth.
 
Last edited:



Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
My quick fix for that is to say center-gripped shields can be equipped as an object interaction but can be disarmed just like weapons, whereas shields secured by enarms can’t be disarmed but take an action to don or doff like armor.
I'd further argue if the shield is strapped to my arm and difficult to drop them that would leave my hand free to do various weapon/item swapping shenanigans.

Then, as the GM, I'd overrule myself and say the only way you can swap weapons "freely" is by throwing or dropping one, not stowing and unstowing as if you are juggling three hands worth of items.

Also how does the warhorse see in the magical darkness?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I'd further argue if the shield is strapped to my arm and difficult to drop them that would leave my hand free to do various weapon/item swapping shenanigans.
I wouldn’t, because while you may be able to wiggle your fingers and even grasp the hilt of a dagger whilst a shield is strapped to your arm, you also have a shield strapped to your arm, which is going to be quite cumbersome and get in the way of quickly drawing and stowing small items on your person.
Then, as the GM, I'd overrule myself and say the only way you can swap weapons "freely" is by throwing or dropping one, not stowing and unstowing as if you are juggling three hands worth of items.
Right, you get one item interaction on your turn. Whether or not you have a shield equipped doesn’t change that, it just reduces the number of free hands you have with which to interact with objects by 1.
Also how does the warhorse see in the magical darkness?
I don’t think you meant to address this question to me, but my answer would be “it doesn’t.”
 

Standard aventuring day.
Cool. It would be interesting to see how the sorceror performs as well.

So: 6 - 8 (We'll go with 7) combats, 3 rounds each, over the course of 16 hours. An hour between combats, but only opportunity to take 2 short rests over the day.
Base assumptions:
The creatures you're fighting are AC 13, aggressive, but not mindless. They will move to attack in melee for preference over their ranged attacks, but will not deliberately take damage or risk themselves: There will be the opportunity for one movement-based opportunity attack from PAM (which both characters will probably have), and one other instance of "voluntarily" taking damage (triggering BB, moving into persistent AoE etc) every combat.
The character is a member of a party (rogue, healer, arcane caster) who will provide flanking 50% of the time if they can see the character, but will not buff them. (No Haste, or Bless from them for example. - Effects that you cast yourself are fine.)
There is no overkill, but because the rest of the party are killstealing jerks, the character will only actually take down one opponent each combat.
No applicable resistances. Characters have a +1 magic weapon and opponents take full damage from any elemental effects the bladesinger uses.

Anything missing, or anything else people think should be stipulated?
 
Last edited:

Xetheral

Three-Headed Sirrush
Technically you need Dual Wielder to be able to draw and sheathe a weapon on the same turn, since it uses your object interaction. I know a lot of DMs are more generous with such interactions than what RAW allows, but it’s something to be aware of and discuss with your DM before assuming it will work.
I've seen it argued that RAW limits the number of objects that can be interacted with to one, but doesn't limit the number of interactions with that object. The text in the PHB says:

PHB said:
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.

I think there is definitely some ambiguity in there. In any case I think that RAI has to be only one interaction, considering the list of examples is full of things things like "draw or sheathe a sword" rather than "draw and sheathe a sword".
 

With his Warhorse, He can move 120fts per turn without provoke oportunity attack (Darkness).
Wait, wait, wait! You’re riding a Warhorse, that does not have darkvision, in pitch dark, at full speed?

The horse broke a leg, roll a Dex saving throw (DC 14) or take 1d10 dmg and be knocked prone. If you fail the save by 5 or more, you take 3d10 dmg and are pinned underneath the horse (DC 13 Ath check to escape).
 

Hohige

Explorer
Wait, wait, wait! You’re riding a Warhorse, that does not have darkvision, in pitch dark, at full speed?

The horse broke a leg, roll a Dex saving throw (DC 14) or take 1d10 dmg and be knocked prone. If you fail the save by 5 or more, you take 3d10 dmg and are pinned underneath the horse (DC 13 Ath check to escape).
You Control the Warhorse. So, its ok.
 

You Control the Warhorse. So, its ok.
Bold move! You spend your action attempting to use Animal Handling to Control the Warhorse with a broken leg to get off of you. It fails (no roll), since the horse is beyond listening to you at this point. It’s not going anywhere.

Given that you are pinned and prone below the horse, the melee enemy walks up to you and attacks. Assuming you succeeded on your Concentration check on Darkness from the horse falling on you, the prone and darkness cancel each other out. On a straight roll against AC 17 however, a CR 8 enemy has a good chance of seriously damaging you.
 
Last edited:

Hohige

Explorer
Bold move! You spend your action attempting to use Animal Handling to Control the Warhorse with a broken leg to get off of you. It fails (no roll), since the horse is beyond listening to you at this point. It’s not going anywhere.

Given that you are pinned and prone below the horse, the melee enemy walks up to you and attacks. Assuming you succeeded on your Concentration check on Darkness from the horse falling on you, the prone and darkness cancel each other out. On a straight roll against AC 17 however, a CR 8 enemy has a good chance of seriously damaging you.
It was never broken leg, because you control the warhorse.
The Steed doesn't need darkvision, because you control it and you can see on Darkness.
 

It was never broken leg, because you control the warhorse.
The Steed doesn't need darkvision, because you control it and you can see on Darkness.
Right, by RAW totally how the rules work. Also totally not how actual horses work.

My guess is that between all the DMs who would oppose it on principle, and all the ones who would strike upon a real world limitation of horses to punish this Sorcerer from using the same set of powergaming tactics over and over again, this horse would eventually end up with broken legs or whatever at a majority of tables where the lack of horse darkvision occurred to someone.
 

Hohige

Explorer
Right, by RAW totally how the rules work. Also totally not how actual horses work.

My guess is that between all the DMs who would oppose it on principle, and all the ones who would strike upon a real world limitation of horses to punish this Sorcerer from using the same set of powergaming tactics over and over again, this horse would eventually end up with broken legs or whatever at a majority of tables where the lack of horse darkvision occurred to someone.
It doesnt hold water...
The Steed is under Control and the Rider can ser through darkness. It works very well.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top