• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Should 5e have more classes (Poll and Discussion)?

Should D&D 5e have more classes?


DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
I'll think that over. I am currently more inclined to allowing them until the end of the turn after they attack before the spell is lost.
So, they could get two chances to hit with it with two attacks via Extra Attack? That might be okay... at least it would be some sort of limiting factor.

And I can see that thematically...
 

log in or register to remove this ad


TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I'll think that over. I am currently more inclined to allowing them until the end of the turn after they attack before the spell is lost.
I think that's probably a good idea. Spell strike adds a far amount of accuracy because the gish can use their weapon attack stat instead of their spell casting stat, and letting it be possible on two different attacks gives the target defacto disadvantage on their save. Having the spell be stored until the end of your next turn or until you take the Attack action would be a solid balancing factor.

Having it eat concentration to maintain is also an alternative balancing mechanism.
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
(before 11th level, and I do have concerns that the BA Spell Strike may be too strong)
Yes, it is powerful. I will tweak with that ability, as well. I do want them to have the ability to do it as a bonus action eventually, but maybe 11th level is too soon.
(I don't remember seeing that they were immune to the effects of the spell being triggered, although I should also review it.)
The ignoring your own AoE spells only comes at level 20. Up until then, you normally have to eat your fireballs, unless you focus on using thrown weapons.
Having it eat concentration to maintain is also an alternative balancing mechanism.
That's how it works up until level 11, just to balance it a bit more.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Sure, then you go with a different spell. Like I said, it is super strong IMO so just play test it and see how it goes... maybe I'm wrong, I'm just going with my gut here.
I know it's strong, it's meant to be, but I will work to balance it. I need to playtest it, but I currently don't have the ability to do that at the moment (I can't do it online, not inside, and my valley is on fire, so we can't go outside).
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
One would imagine that avoiding this would be one of the first things people whose main thing is to combine melee combat with offensive spells would learn.
A cost of adding a fireball to your attack is that you have to hit yourself with a fireball. I may move that feature to earlier if you think it should be, and if enough others agree.
 


TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
That might be balanced, but it is bloody stupid. Higher level D&D characters being crazy resilient might make it a viable tactic from the rules perspective, but from in universe perspective it is absurd.
Sure, and I imagine most gishes wouldn't use fireball as a spell strike option for precisely that reason. It's not like the concept was balanced around players spell striking fireballs.
 

Remove ads

Top