Level Up (A5E) Thoughts on A5E classes from your table(s)?

[evildmguy]

i don't really mind that berserkers can get evasion - i mind more that A. adepts can't and B. the alternative to evasion for berserkers is just a straight up trap option.

i'm thinking of replacing the evasion/trap choice for berserkers with adding your rage HP bonus to your saves while raging as a house rule. remove the trap option entirely.

i mean, maybe WOTC intended it that way, but it's a port of shield master from o5e.

also, i don't think i'd say shield focus is more powerful then evasion. for one, it takes up your reaction, and for another it does nothing for you if you fail the save. sure, you can add your shield's AC bonus to the save, but only if the effect targets only you - i'm pretty sure most dex saves are AOEs, so most of the time it wouldn't even apply.

I find it interesting where we differ. Thanks for the discussion!

I don't have system mastery. All I know is that when I throw effects at the high level human fighters, they can roll over or with advantage on a lot of saves. I think one of them took Fate, which is some of where this comes from. I don't know if there are maneuvers that helps with this as well? I'm not trying to negate their choices, that's fine.

Shield Focus makes no difference on AoE spells, unless I'm reading it wrong again. If it's a DEX save, they can use their reaction to negate damage.

i actually find the opposite is more true for me - i can accept using your shield to protect yourself from something, because that's literally the entire point of them. i find it incredibly difficult to square completely avoiding something that 100% envelops you with the only justification being "doj gud" when you don't even leave your space. i do see how it could've been another opportunity to make use of the maintenance system, though.

I'm sure this is just me. I have had my days where I don't understand how an evasion character gets out of the way of something that fills the area. I have even thought about saying that if a character is engulfed in the AoE then it's a Fort/Con save instead. That changes the fundamentals, though, so I haven't.

As for shields, most of my issue is that the non magical shield takes no damage. The rest of it is subjective based on how I think of the magic. I don't see Fireball as a blast effect because it does no force damage. It's all fire. To me, magical fire fills that area for several seconds, so I don't see how a shield helps against that. On another point, shields are composite objects, made of metal, wood, and leather. All of those things are susceptible to fire, whether a spell or dragon's breath, and I don't mind the bonus to a save, I merely think it should damage a mundane shield. I still think wearing or having metal should impose disadvantage on saves with electricity effects but the rare version of lightning bolt seems to say standard lightning isn't conductive. Weird but whatever.

what you'll get out of this is what you got out of 3e/pf1e, where creatures get into melee and then just don't move because there's no point. i'd find that boring, personally, but if that's what you want then there you go.

How much do your players move around during combat? For what reason?

Maybe you have seen it completely different from me but I still see fighter types getting into melee and stopping. Maybe they shift a square or two for support to be next to someone but it doesn't change the fact that fighters get into melee and bash the thing until it's down.

(I found positioning to be silly such as requiring two characters on opposite sides to get flanking. I would watch a player count out how to get opposite their ally in combat to give flanking. Now, this is me, but that got old. I allow the bonus if two allies attack one enemy, regardless if they are opposite each other. Sure, it's easier to get than maybe it should be, but it works. )

i mean, fair on the complex point, it is a condition chain, but i'm completely stupefied by the idea that changing a single maneuver has broader implications then fundamentally changing how actions and movement interact with each other. changing stunning assault to be a condition chain only actually effects stunning assault itself (well, and how the party interacts with it), and only really suggests the possibility of implementing the idea elsewhere. changing movement so that it just ends whenever you take an action changes how you have to approach thinking about positioning whenever you want to take any action at all.

See, I think you aren't going far enough here in your thinking. Does Power Word Stun now require multiple instances of it? What about Contagion, Symbol, Divine Word, Psychic Scream, Hammer of Thunderbolts, and other things that cause stun? How many does it take to overcome your threshold?

Then what about other condition chains? Slowed restrained petrified? Deafened Blinded Rattled Incapacitated? Shaken Frightened panicked? Sickened staggered nauseated? Adding in condition chains, IMO, has a much bigger implication than stopping movement a bit too soon. To be clear, not all of these conditions are a5e. It's me expanding the thinking that if Stun gets a chain, then other conditions that are debilitating should as well.

I get these are still subjective. It's all of the things added up. I find that doing one action at a time and then being done makes sense for a six second round, you want people to be able to move all over until movement is done. We each have our limits.

yeah, i think the last time we discussed that you said the same thing. i like it too, and it's the simplest fix i'd want to try.

I'm still looking at options. I still don't like it being equally effective against bigger, or smaller to be fair, opponents, much less non humanoid ones.

i like it. it's a trade off like you say, and it gives an actual cost to things that would otherwise just be a free action.

how i've usually seen it done in the groups i'm in is the DM will give the player a goal (usually "kill the party") and then let them handle it. softball, hardball, whatever.

well, either that or the DM just won't use it at all, which i find is a bit more common among my groups. i did run the crypta hereticarum once and one of the players just told me to take control of his PC when he got dominated instead of giving him a goal. of course, that was also in the very first fight and i ran those monsters completely wrong, but uh...that was also the party's favourite fight of the dungeon, so task failed successfully, i guess?

Most of the time, that's how it goes for me. As my groups are older, they understand what that means. I still have a few hold outs from time to time to who try and minimize it, mainly when they realize how bad what they do is when inflicted on PCs. I mostly like it so they see that from my side.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[Distracted DM]

I certainly mind that berserkers get evasion, especially since they also get advantage on Dex saves and can wear heavy armor with it. Kind of nuts IMO. I know some a5e classes are "5e but better," berserker and Bard being the two most notable because their 5e classes were both good already, but berserker is... Very very powerful. I have two separate players in separate games with them and they're pretty nuts compared to everyone else.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I find it interesting where we differ. Thanks for the discussion!

I don't have system mastery. All I know is that when I throw effects at the high level human fighters, they can roll over or with advantage on a lot of saves. I think one of them took Fate, which is some of where this comes from. I don't know if there are maneuvers that helps with this as well? I'm not trying to negate their choices, that's fine.

there's at least a couple of maneuvers (shrug it off and unstoppable from adamant mountain) that let you ignore or mitigate certain conditions, yeah.

Shield Focus makes no difference on AoE spells, unless I'm reading it wrong again. If it's a DEX save, they can use their reaction to negate damage.

yeah, the damage negation doesn't care if it's an AoE or not, but the ability to add your shield's AC bonus to the save does.

As for shields, most of my issue is that the non magical shield takes no damage. The rest of it is subjective based on how I think of the magic. I don't see Fireball as a blast effect because it does no force damage. It's all fire. To me, magical fire fills that area for several seconds, so I don't see how a shield helps against that. On another point, shields are composite objects, made of metal, wood, and leather. All of those things are susceptible to fire, whether a spell or dragon's breath, and I don't mind the bonus to a save, I merely think it should damage a mundane shield. I still think wearing or having metal should impose disadvantage on saves with electricity effects but the rare version of lightning bolt seems to say standard lightning isn't conductive. Weird but whatever.

i mean, you have the right to say an object is damaged (or has a chance to be damaged) whenever you want as the narrator.

How much do your players move around during combat? For what reason?

Maybe you have seen it completely different from me but I still see fighter types getting into melee and stopping. Maybe they shift a square or two for support to be next to someone but it doesn't change the fact that fighters get into melee and bash the thing until it's down.

sometimes people want to navigate around a creature. sometimes people want to retreat. sometimes you kill an enemy with your first attack and want to use your second.

See, I think you aren't going far enough here in your thinking. Does Power Word Stun now require multiple instances of it?

power word stun is an 8th level spell and is (as a power word) HP dependent. it can also only ever effect 1 creature. it also does, in a way, have a built in condition chain, since it rattles creatures above the HP threshold instead of stunning them. it also doesn't do damage.

What about Contagion,

5th level spell that can only effect one creature and doesn't do damage. also, the stun is dependent on taking damage - it's not immediate.

Symbol,

7th level spell with a casting time long enough to be useless to cast in a combat. also, each creature only needs to save once.

Divine Word,

7th level, and somehow even more HP dependent then power word stun.

Psychic Scream,

this is an o5e only spell so i don't think it's relevant, but it's also a NINTH LEVEL SPELL, so even if it were an a5e spell i'd be baffled that you put it here.

Hammer of Thunderbolts,

legendary magic item worth 60,000 gp and with a set save DC of 17 (almost certainly lower then your maneuver/spell save DC - whichever is higher - by the time you get it), and also you can only use the stun effect up to 5 times per day and you don't even necessarily get all the uses for it back after a long rest. ALSO requires all your attunement slots (unless you're a high level artificer or a constructed paragon, in which case it only uses MOST of your attunement slots).

and other things that cause stun? How many does it take to overcome your threshold?

there's a very specific set of circumstances that make stunning assault so problematic (from what's been discussed).
1. it's cheap. it's EXTREMELY cheap (and harder to resist!) for a fighter that's specialized in it. because it's so cheap, you can use it basically every round. all the effects above are either high level spells (requiring high level slots) or, in the case of the hammer, an extremely rare and expensive magical item.
2. you can pick it up as early as 5th level, whereas the earliest you can grab any of the spells listed above is 13th. there's no guarantee the hammer will even exist in any given campaign.
3. you can spread your attacks to stun multiple creatures, OR force a single creature to save against it multiple times, depending on what you need (and how often you can hit, to be fair), all in a single turn. only the hammer can do this, but its uses per day are significantly more limited then stunning assault.

in short, stunning assault really isn't like any of these other effects you've listed. that's why you can justify a condition chain for it without it having broader implications - the chain is a balancing factor.

Then what about other condition chains? Slowed restrained petrified? Deafened Blinded Rattled Incapacitated? Shaken Frightened panicked? Sickened staggered nauseated? Adding in condition chains, IMO, has a much bigger implication than stopping movement a bit too soon. To be clear, not all of these conditions are a5e. It's me expanding the thinking that if Stun gets a chain, then other conditions that are debilitating should as well.

like...i guess you could add condition chains to other places. like if you want to make lower level effects that could potentially build up to very staggering conditions. but you don't really need to, and none of the effects you've tried to counter with really (in my view) justify having a condition chain (i mean sheesh, imagine a 9th level spell that induced rattled on a healthy creature that FAILED the save. actual garbage).

also, i think there's monsters that use the slowed -> restrained -> petrified chain already, or at least something similar.

I'm still looking at options. I still don't like it being equally effective against bigger, or smaller to be fair, opponents, much less non humanoid ones.

creatures tend to have higher CON scores as they get larger, so in my view this is largely a concern that addresses itself.