D&D 5E Vs Vecna battle simulations.

[Charlaquin]

Well, as I said, I don't particularly agree that "no VSM" means "can't tell a spell is being cast" - I mean, OBVIOUSLY it would be harder to tell, but this is Vecna we're talking about!

Yeah, if we agree he needs to know the spell is being cast and just disagree about whether or not he’d know a spell was being cast if it had no components, I’m comfortable leaving it at that.

 

[Mistwell]

No, he's not.

Vecna is an Int 24 Archlich, with access to scrying, a millenia of experience fighting PCs, and time to prepare.

None of that is mentioned in the video. It's clear you have not watched the WOTC video on Vecna he's referencing.

He's not going to let a bunch of (Epic) 20th level PC Fighters (whose names and deeds are known to everyone in the Kingdom, and likely many across the Multiverse) just waltz into his lair, and shoot him in a white room from 120' away.

Thats just -NOT- going to happen, and a DM that runs him that way, isnt running Vecna as... Vecna.

Take it up with WOTC. If you're arguing their tactics outlined in that video are bad, I am right there with you. But hey, it's them who made that video.

Show me the room.

No. Why are you arguing this if you have not read it?

Also explain why Vecna has to say in that room, or not alter his tactics based on the capabilities of the Party (who we can assume he has Scryed, and knows everything about).

Vecnas core schtick is knowing secrets. We can safely assume he knows the PCs are coming for him, and knows their abilities, and has planned ahead of time.

Take all this up with WOTC my friend. They made a video on how this is supposed to go down.

No, I'm not.

You cant apply crit damage to averaged DPR (because static bonuses - such as those from sharpshooter and Dex) are not multipled on a crit, and the maths triggering 2 x Arcane Shot options, presumes 2 x attacks hit.

I believe he's only applying it to the dice rolled and not the static. But you're welcome to take that issue up with Treantmonk.

No attacks could hit, or only one could hit. That needs to be facored into the Arcane Shot bonus damage.

Not for AVERAGES it doesn't. This part of your retort is just nonsense. They could ALL crit also, but we don't factor that in either. For averages, you take the average number of hits, and if the average number of hits is more than two (and it's double that) then it's reasonable to say the average has two arcane shots hit (or one hit if the claim only one can be used is accurate - I mentioned it to him). But again, take this up with him.

Thats like adding full smite damage (not divided by hit probability) to a Paladins DPR.

It's nothing like that. If on average 4 out of 8 are hits, and you only need 2 hits to apply X damage, then ON AVERAGE you'd apply X damage.

 

[Flamestrike]

think it's fair to say "I ready x for a guy who is going to attack me" and do it when the guy attacks you. If the rules allow (in 5e they don't, but IIRC they used to interrupt) your reaction to go first, then it implies that you can tell what they're about to do. I know that experienced fighters can often predict when they are about to be attacked by "tells". I can imagine Vecna spotting "tells" for spells, if you'll pardon the rhyme.

And the above is fine. Your reaction is triggered by the attack (the percievable trigger) and goes after the attack is resolved.

I'd give you a broad natural language interpretation of your trigger of 'attack' including moving to attack (like if there was an Orc, 30 feet away, and it moved towards you screaming with an Axe drawn) that would allow your reaction to trigger, and not just [attack] = [attack roll or spell].

But the fact remains, your trigger must be perceivable by you, or there is nothing for you to react to.

I guess ultimately I just don't buy the idea that "No VSM" means "No spellcasting tells".

That's exactly what it means (going by the Counterspell ruling). There is no indication a spell lacking V,S and M components is actually being cast at all (the caster just thinks it, and it happens).

I could understand a possible insight check or something to tell the guy you're speaking to is also casting a [Subtle] Charm person.

He doesnt need to move different or wave his hands in your face, nor does he need to say anything special or manipulate any wands or components. There is no 'tell' other than maybe a hunch.

 

[Mort]

Where is that specified?

You're trying to infer that the ability somehow grants him the ability to -unerringly know- when a creature is casting a spell.

I dont see that inference in his ability at all.

Because otherwise it makes no sense to change the wording of Counter-spell. They could have just taken out the range requirement but left the rest of the wording intact, they did not. The new wording does not require he know the spell is cast. And nothing in reactions require it either. The reaction trigger could just as easily be the spell manifests and he counters it then ( something no other caster could do).

Besides it makes perfect sense for someone like Vecna.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, if we agree he needs to know the spell is being cast and just disagree about whether or not he’d know a spell was being cast if it had no components, I’m comfortable leaving it at that.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the game sometimes informs itself forwards and backwards. In this case, the fact that it's implied that he can do it without knowing means that he actually does know. I use this method to explain A LOT of rules-to-fiction inconsistencies. I'm pretty sure I've seen you do that too.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the game sometimes informs itself forwards and backwards. In this case, the fact that it's implied that he can do it without knowing means that he actually does know. I use this method to explain A LOT of rules-to-fiction inconsistencies. I'm pretty sure I've seen you do that too.

Yeah, I have no problem with that, I just don’t think the wording implies that he can do it without knowing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because otherwise it makes no sense to change the wording of Counter-spell. They could have just taken out the range requirement but left the rest of the wording intact, they did not. The new wording does not require he know the spell is cast. And nothing in reactions require it either. The reaction trigger could just as easily be the spell manifests and he counters it then ( something no other caster could do).

Besides it makes perfect sense for someone like Vecna.

I don’t think the templating in 5e is as consistent as you give it credit for here.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

He doesnt need to move different or wave his hands in your face, nor does he need to say anything special or manipulate any wands or components. There is no 'tell' other than maybe a hunch.

Or, like I said before, scrunching up your face and concentrating while "willing" the spell into existence. Pretty much anything we've seen "psychic"-type characters do in movies. There could also be a visual effect around the caster, or the area. I mean, if you cast a "subtle" fireball, does the described "line of flame" (that goes from the caster to the target area) just disappear? Isn't ALL of that just fluff? Couldn't it be pretty much anything at all?

But, yes. I understand you now, and don't really disagree.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don’t think the templating in 5e is as consistent as you give it credit for here.

I totally agree with you that one can't infer anything from a change in wording. It can literally be that the writer thought they were typing the exact same thing as counterspell and thew in an extra word. It's not surprising to me that we here can use something as silly as that to argue about it!

 

[Flamestrike]

None of that is mentioned in the video. It's clear you have not watched the WOTC video on Vecna he's referencing.

And the video is a comprehensive limit on how Vecna must fight all opponents is it?

The girl in the Video is at great pains to point out that 'Vecna is a cunning fighter, and will use sneaky tactics, target spellcasters, use range if its to his advantage etc'.

The clear inference from the Video there mate (along with everything Vecna stands for, and all his fluff) is that he is expected to know the parties capabilities, be planned for them in advance, and not stand there like a bag of HP at 120' in a white room.

Take it up with WOTC. If you're arguing their tactics outlined in that video are bad, I am right there with you. But hey, it's them who made that video.

No, you're just misrepresenting (or dont understand) what the video is saying.

Clearly they're saying 'play him smart'. You're somehow interpreting that as them saying 'play him stupid'.

Not for AVERAGES it doesn't. This part of your retort is just nonsense. They could ALL crit also, but we don't factor that in either. For averages, you take the average number of hits, and if the average number of hits is more than two (and it's double that) then it's reasonable to say the average has two arcane shots hit. But again, take this up with him.

You also dont understand how probabilities work. I'll try and help, but my maths also isnt that great.

When averaging DPR its [average damage x hit %) per attack. You cant then factor crit damage in by using the formula [(average DPRx2) x (number of attacks) x (crit chance %)] - which is what the dude in the Video does - becuase you dont multiply all damage on a crit.

You need to estimate your odds of a crit in a round, then multiply that by the average damage of the extra dice only (and to be more accurate you would also need to factor in Arcane shot, because you sure as hell would use arcane shot on a crit).

It's nothing like that. If on average 4 out of 8 are hits, and you only need 2 hits to apply X damage, then ON AVERAGE you'd apply X damage.

No mate. Stop for a second and think. You're wrong here.

We need to determine the probability of 2 attacks hitting (and averaged against 1 attack hitting, or zero attacks hitting). It's a difficult compound equation.

Do you agree that ''Unless you can 100 percent guarantee that at least 2 attacks hit (and we cant) you cant apply 100 percent of the arcane shot average damage?''

If the answer is 'Yes' we cant apply 100 percent of the Arcane Shot damage, can we?