D&D 5E (2014) Wizard strategies discussed

[Treantmonklvl20]

Hiya.

I've played with guys like this

Sorry, I couldn't find a bathroom, I had no idea they were your corn flakes.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's the intended purpose of the (dis)Advantage mechanic: To be handed out willy-nilly. It streamlines combat and prevents people from pulling out every nitpicking thing they can thing to pile on the small bonuses. You don't even need anything as powerful as a cantrip to hand them out, everyone and their trained dog can grant it with the help action.

While the Help action can do this, it does have a major disadvantage that using a cantrip from 30 feet away does not (typically followed by moving even further away). The PC using the Help action is at risk for being attacked in melee if s/he rushes up into melee to do this. The Help action at safe range is considerably more potent of an ability than the normal Help action.

We could get into a conversation about the merits of speeding up play with the Advantage/Disadvantage rule, but personally as a DM, I never grant more than a single +2 or -2 anyway. It's faster at the table to add in +2 than it is to grab an additional D20 (and all of the time waste and drama of which extra D20 to grab which does happen at tables) IME. In fact, the actual calculation of adding +2 is not even needed 90% of the time. A DM can say "ok, I'll give you +2, but roll your normal attack first". I don't know how many times at a table did I say "Just roll". Players like to talk about their rolls even before they make them. But if they roll a 17 or a 2, why exactly did we need to have this discussion at the table about trying to finagle a situational bonus out of the DM?

And, I personally do not like a +4 or +5 equivalent to the roll for advantage. I think it is too large, the equivalent of 2 or 3 bonuses in earlier editions. So when I was DMing, if I granted any bonus or penalty, it was a small one. I use advantage / disadvantage when the rules explicitly call for it, but I think that it is just another way for players to try to milk the mechanics (as can be seen by the somewhat outrageous box example that started this discussion). The reason TM used that example is BECAUSE advantage is such a huge game mechanic. In 3E, he probably would never have come up with such a cheesy tactic.

My personal take is that Advantage does not streamline combat at all. It just gives players a way to go crazy with dice rolling.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

The reason TM used that example is BECAUSE advantage is such a huge game mechanic.

I can say without reservation that you are mistaken.

Don't take my word for it though. If you listen to the podcast, you will hear me say that the first time I brought up this example to Steve, I had not mentioned the advantage for the rogue to attack (this was because that in the original example, the Barbarian was granting advantage through Wolf Totem and it was redundant, but I thought it should be mentioned regardless).

The primary purpose of the tactic in this particular example, is to discourage attack on the halfling, not provide the halfling advantage, that's just an additional benefit.

Using illusion spells to hamper vision was absolutely something I recommended in earlier editions. I don't agree personally that using illusions that way is cheesy, but you aren't alone in that assessment.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm assuming you are saying the idea is cheesy rather than disputing that you should be able to see into a hole in a box that is at your knees. In which case, it's just an idea. It's not intended to be something you should either find a flaw with or do yourself, but instead get you thinking about how you might use minor illusion (which I realized after listening that I referred to incorrectly as "minor image" for the entire bit)

I consider it a bit beyond cheesy and into the territory of munchkin-ism / rules lawyering (if one considers those to be derogatory activities).

And yes, I do realize that there are some players who get a thrill out of the imaginative things that they can try to accomplish with illusions, I just think that some of that goes overboard into the "how can I bend the rules to their absolute maximum breaking point without the DM getting annoyed at me?" level.

Although I understand your intent, your example was a bit subpar.

Reaction attacks need to be triggered. If nobody else is moving out of melee, who else is triggering the attack? Normally if you disengage, the creature doesn't get a reaction attack on your allies either. The real question is whether the chance of doing cantrip damage is worth the chance of being hit by an attack. I would say that in most cases, the answer to the question is no.

Except that if the Wizard misses but does not move, then on its turn, the foe either a) attacks the wizard as opposed to a different PC, or b) attacks a different PC. The PC wizard does NOT just move away if he misses with Shocking Grasp, he stays where he is (or alternatively moves around the foe a bit to get to a better position). But, the PC wizard does not move away and provoke if he misses.

What I am saying is that a) is ok. It's often ok to do no damage and stay put. You said yourself in the podcast that wizard HAVE to cast a lot of cantrips in 5E. So, what's wrong with casting one once in a while while adjacent to an enemy. Nothing wrong with it. If the attacker does a) above and hits, there is a solid chance that the attacker would have hit the Rogue or the Bard or the Fighter anyway. So using up Wizard Hit Dice after the encounter means not using up Rogue or Bard or Fighter hit dice for that particular attack after the encounter. Granted, the wizard hit dice are a bit smaller than the other PCs, but it's better to use up that resource than it is to end up an adventuring day where the wizard PC never got hit and is sitting there with all of his hit dice.

In other words, there is nothing special about a wizard. He should often take the same risks as the other PCs and not just hang back all of the time. That's boring. IMO.

I try to avoid words like "always" since D&D is a game of circumstance. I like words like "usually" or "situational". However, you will take damage as a Wizard. Since you have fewer HP than your comrades, it makes sense to avoid it when you can IMO. Naturally, if you think the opponent is a few HP from going down, this might have you reconsider, but generally I recommend caution in wizard tactics.

Meh. I think that people should play their wizards like heroes, not like p___ies. Gandalf rushes into combat at the front, he doesn't hide out in the back. He doesn't calculate that he has fewer hit points than the halfling, so he should cower in the back.

That's the opposite of roleplaying.

In 4E, my daughter (at the age of 13) realized that her wizard should be in front once in a while because she often had more healing surges remaining after multiple encounters. It was ok in her mind for her wizard to get hit once in a while.

The conversation might be more in context if you listen to the Podcast I was replying to, where Steve suggests all a wizard is good at is doing damage.

Steve is wrong about that. We have 2 multiclass wizards in our party of 7 (soon to be a party of 6). One is an ranger/invoker whose schtick is damage. One is a cleric/necromancer whose schtick is enemy action denial and PC buff/heal. The latter wizard does do damage with cantrips nearly every encounter, but that's not his schtick.

The tactic I'm recommending in the podcast is to cast the Silent Image, use Illusory Reality as a bonus action to make it real for one minute, then drop the concentration. This is why I like this tactic better than traditional wall spells that require you maintain concentration. Illusory Reality has its own duration (which is flat at one minute), independent of the spell it was modelled from.

Ah, got it. I did not have the PHB in front of me. Still, a 21 foot max length wall (or bridge for that matter as per the Illusory Reality example) is kind of small. Using Silent Image for this in combat would be the exception instead of the rule at most tables due to the 15 foot cube limit of Silent Image except in tighter quarter fighting.

Even Major Image as a 3rd level spell is limited to a 20 foot cube (diagonally, a 28x20 foot wall).

At least IME, higher level D&D encounters tend to be in exotic places with larger areas and tend to rarely be in the small controlled dungeon crawls of many lower levels. The PCs are capable of flying and teleporting and many other effects, so the stage tends to be bigger. By level 14 (potentially 5 levels after a wizard gets a Wall of Stone), a small movable fake wall seems to be less useful at that level than Spell Resistance or Greater Portent.

 

[KarinsDad]

I can say without reservation that you are mistaken.

Don't take my word for it though. If you listen to the podcast, you will hear me say that the first time I brought up this example to Steve, I had not mentioned the advantage for the rogue to attack (this was because that in the original example, the Barbarian was granting advantage through Wolf Totem and it was redundant, but I thought it should be mentioned regardless).

The primary purpose of the tactic in this particular example, is to discourage attack on the halfling, not provide the halfling advantage, that's just an additional benefit.

Using illusion spells to hamper vision was absolutely something I recommended in earlier editions. I don't agree personally that using illusions that way is cheesy, but you aren't alone in that assessment.

It's cheesy if the Halfling is not hampered seeing the NPC and attacking the NPC. If the Halfling was just in a solid box (or even behind a small wall that he could just move around later on), nothing cheesy about it at all.

The cheesy aspect of it is that of "putting small holes into it for the halfing to see through and attack through", not the protecting the halfling bit. That part is fine.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I actually LOL'ed at that.

Yeah, rereading my post.... I was a bit..."harsh". My only excuse is I'm going through a bunch of different new drugs and combos of them for my recently diagnosed fibromyalgia (at least that's what the Dr. is going with... still don't know exactly what's going on). Anyway, after a good sleep and no time for the drugs to kick in yet, I figured I'd post now. I'll drug myself up after this post.

I should have probably rephrased as: "I've played with people who learn the rules a certain way". I am also in a long-time group. I also have been playing since 1980. And, yeah, I too have most of my players from waaaaay back (15, 20 and even 30+ years with them)...and I know we have our own hang-ups and "expectations of play".

I think that was what I was on about; the expectations of play part. In my game, I'd never allow the halfling-in-a-box thing to give all the bonuses to the halfling and all the penalties to the orog. It just doesn't make sense. I'd give the halfling disadvantage on his attacks if he wanted to avoid "bringing down" the illusion. If he didn't mind bringing it down, he could attack normally (not with advantage). I'd give the orog a penalty to hit the halfling equal to 3/4 cover, but weather he hits or misses, it will disable the illusion.

It's all about expectations of play and how we learned. From the sound of it, you and your group learned the "if it's in the rules, that's the way it is" type (which is what I meant in my original post...but with about 80% more snark...sorry!). I've played with people who also learned that way. Hell, I was even that way for a while...but then I discovered it didn't work for me and realized that the believably of the game (the "suspension of disbelief", as Gary mentioned in the 1e DMG) was much more important than always (or even almost always) deferring to the RAW.

I'm still standing by my interpretation of Polymorph and Illusory Reality, though. Polymorph, in my mind and in my game, is primarily a spell used to overcome unusual situations or deal with some situation that isn't combat. Turning into a fish to get through the underwater passageway, or turning into a hawk to scout the immediate surrounding or fly to a nearby tower top to deliver a message. Turning into a T-Rex to chew on someone...while fun...is probably a waste of a spell. This goes back to expectation of play. In my games, combats happen often. Probably more than 'normal' (a typical 5 hour play session of a dungeon bash will have roughly...10'ish... combats. During that time there will also be about 3 or 4 "danger" situations (poison gas in corridor, yellow mold covered room, extreme temperature, etc), and another 3 or 4 "hazards" (semi-collapsed corridor strewn with rubble, 80' sheer cliff faces down to a raging river, cave covered in 9" of bat guano, etc). Using a Polymorph spell for these situations would be a LOT better than turning into a big monster to kill something.

And the wall thing? I'ts 15' x21' (as someone posted above). That's not any where near "I win!". I can see my players using it to create more mundane items needed for exploring and surviving in the dungeon; a set of lockpicks, a crowbar, a water proof tarp, a canoe, a barrel and some oil to fill it, etc. As I said, using the wall as a "get the helloutta Dodge!" action when the chips are down and everyone's getting their butts handed to them.... that is a good use for it. Using it to try and 'control' enemies is useful for probably a round or two, tops. And now there's this great bloody wall in the middle of the cave that the bad guys can use as cover as well.

Anyway, sorry again for all the piss n' vinigar in that first post of mine. I'll take my punishment now...

...walks away to get a spoon for his specially flavoured corn flakes...



^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

I consider it a bit beyond cheesy and into the territory of munchkin-ism / rules lawyering (if one considers those to be derogatory activities).

And yes, I do realize that there are some players who get a thrill out of the imaginative things that they can try to accomplish with illusions, I just think that some of that goes overboard into the "how can I bend the rules to their absolute maximum breaking point without the DM getting annoyed at me?" level.

I'm not sure it was necessary to start labelling me with insulting terms. I responded to your original post in a respectful way. (Though from your use of each term, I'm guessing you have different definitions of each, though you clearly understood they were derogatory)

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Yeah, rereading my post.... I was a bit..."harsh". .

I was wondering why you were insulting me when I didn't think I had done anything to you. No harm done, thanks for the explanation. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but I'm not fond of put-downs.

From the sound of it, you and your group learned the "if it's in the rules, that's the way it is" type

We're actually not. We are more "Start with the rules, and go from there." We generally assume things that are allowed in the rules work, but if the DM thinks it's unrealistic or damaging to game balance, he's free to make a ruling. I would have no problem at all with the ruling you said you would make, but I would expect the chance to make adjustments to my action after you made your house-ruling clear. That's also the way we play if I'm the DM.

Personally, I wouldn't rule that the halfling doesn't get advantage despite being unseen, but DM's rule differently.

The point of the example wasn't to convince any listeners to start having their Wizards put boxes over the party halfling of course, it was just an example to show that the minor illusion spell has possibilities that provide tactical advantages with creative use.

I'm still standing by my interpretation of Polymorph and Illusory Reality, though. Polymorph, in my mind and in my game, is primarily a spell used to overcome unusual situations or deal with some situation that isn't combat. Turning into a fish to get through the underwater passageway, or turning into a hawk to scout the immediate surrounding or fly to a nearby tower top to deliver a message.

In which case I wouldn't use the spell in your game. Note that this is the first time I've come across this particular interpretation.

 

[Agamon]

Reading the title, I thought this would be another thread discussing Wizards of the Coast's marketing strategy for 5E

It will be, just give it a couple pages.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I'm still standing by my interpretation of Polymorph and Illusory Reality, though. Polymorph, in my mind and in my game, is primarily a spell used to overcome unusual situations or deal with some situation that isn't combat. Turning into a fish to get through the underwater passageway, or turning into a hawk to scout the immediate surrounding or fly to a nearby tower top to deliver a message. Turning into a T-Rex to chew on someone...while fun...is probably a waste of a spell. This goes back to expectation of play. In my games, combats happen often. Probably more than 'normal' (a typical 5 hour play session of a dungeon bash will have roughly...10'ish... combats. During that time there will also be about 3 or 4 "danger" situations (poison gas in corridor, yellow mold covered room, extreme temperature, etc), and another 3 or 4 "hazards" (semi-collapsed corridor strewn with rubble, 80' sheer cliff faces down to a raging river, cave covered in 9" of bat guano, etc). Using a Polymorph spell for these situations would be a LOT better than turning into a big monster to kill something.

And tactically speaking your interpretation remains...bad. Very few hazard-type situations should be worth the cost of a 4th level spell. But beyond that, you are also discounting one of the primary strengths of polymorph - the extra hit point pool. A T-Rex or Giant Ape give upwards of 100 extra hit points (e.g. more than a Heal spell). Put on a companion up from unconsciousness by a single healing word or basic healing potion...and they significantly improve fighting capacity in dangerous situations.