Recent Posts

1

Discussion / Re: Theorycrafting! (Because I like competitive metagames too much)

« Last post by metroid composite on Today at 04:15:54 AM »

D&D Ban-a-thon

Mmm...yeah, I think I am convinced for the second list (the one with peace cleric gloomstalker etc banned) that Warlock should slide ahead of ranger.

So

1. Paladin
2. Wizard
3. Sorcerer
4. Warlock
5. Ranger
6. Fighter
7. Barbarian
8. Bard
9. Druid
10. Cleric
11. Artificer
12. Monk
13. Rogue

For that list.

---

Meanwhile though, for the first list, where classes get credit for even just dips into their most busted subclasses...I think I'm underselling just how unreasonable the peace cleric dip is.

Like it's hard to get an exact number on Gloomstalker Ranger's output, but lets just say it's advantage on attacks.  Sometimes it will be more than that (when you fight in darkness and also benefit from the 3rd attack) sometimes it will be less (when you only get the first round bonuses).  But let's call advantage the net output average.

Anyway, if you assume all that, how much damage does a Peace Cleric's Emboldening Bond add assuming you can leverage the 10 minute duration and get it up in advance of the combat?  Well...if you have two people with power attacks (great weapon master or sharpshooter) the net amount of contribution of Emboldening Bond to damage is pretty similar to the gap between a gloomstalker and...let's say a Earth Genasi Eldritch Knight.  And it obviously is good for saving throws and some skill checks (although I have seen it argued that since the d4 can only be added once per turn that it doesn't apply to initiative as that happens outside of the normal turn order).  So...yeah, I think I should slide Cleric up on that list.

I suppose there's maybe an argument to slide Cleric above Paladin as well, cause Peace Cleric is just that unreasonable.  But...I don't know, Paladin is a bigger saving throw boost, and has good subclass auras, and with a few more paladin levels can give fear immunity to the party.  And there's no risk of not having the feature up, it's always up.

So...sliding peace cleric upwards that would make the list with all the busted subclasses credited:

1. Paladin
2. Cleric
3. Ranger
4. Wizard
5. Fighter
6. Warlock
7. Sorcerer
8. Bard
9. Druid
10. Artificer
11. Monk
12. Barbarian
13. Rogue

2

General Chat / Re: What games are you playing 2024? Battle strength determined by frilly outfits

« Last post by Cmdr_King on May 01, 2024, 05:21:23 AM »

Princess Peach Showtime!- Finished this.  It's not a very substantial game, and the A+ costume design is sadly the only truly excellent part of it, but it's... Fine, y'know?  Good enough game.  Probably wouldn't recommend dropping $60 on it for most people?  I don't think it really lends itself to replays or challenges in particular; as far as I can tell, there's 30 stages plus 5 bosses and you have to do all of them to finish.  There might be some extras but it's not many.  So it's not really like a proper Mario game in that way.

Now aesthetically it does pretty well at staying engaging across the entire run.  There's 3 stages for each costume, the stage play aesthetic is strong, it helps bind the whole thing together.  But I'm going to forget everything about this game by next week, and honestly only three or so of the stage types are actually engaging in their own right.  At the same time though, as you might expect from having 10 distinct stage types determined by your current job class in a platformer, none of the gameplay really has the depth to sustain many more stages than that.  The game just really never rises above the issues generated by its premise even if it's pleasant enough within that.

So yeah, not a bad game, but not one I can strongly recommend given the many other games out there and nintendo's pricing tendencies.

3

General Chat / Re: What games are you playing 2024? Battle strength determined by frilly outfits

« Last post by Dark Holy Elf on May 01, 2024, 01:13:10 AM »

Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones

Replayed this. Eirika HM. Decided to actually do early promotions. Core team was Eirika (promoted at 20), Ephraim (20), Seth, Tana (11, Wyvern Knight), Colm (16, Rogue), Vanessa (17, Wyvern Knight), Gerik (10, Hero), Duessel, Saleh, Lute (10, Mage Knight), Kyle (11, Paladin), and Tethys. Colm got pretty RNG blessed early, almost immediately turning into an excellent fighter. And then Tana possibly got even more RNG-blessed, even despite promoting early she was 23 str / 29 spd by the end, crazy.

Metroid

Amy wanted to see this. This is the first time I've played it since 2001, when I played it once before. It's... clunky. The DNA of later Metroid games is visible but it's just not very fun to play. Starting at 30 HP every time you die (which is as little as like ~5% later) is awful, the way the game emphasizes very slow grinding to heal is bad, lack of map is a bad combination with how same-y the areas are.

Kid Icarus

See above, another NES game which I consider much worse than at least one later game in the series. Made by some of the same people right after Metroid 1, so it's neat to play it as a pseudo-sequel. This one I haven't played since ~1996! Anyway while also obviously aged, I do think it's notably more fun than Metroid 1; enemies NOT dropping health is actually a huge addition by subtraction so I'm never tempted to grind, and you start off at reasonable HP anyway (100% early, as little as 40% later). Game's an odd hodgepodge of stages, the three castles have a bit of a Metroid feel but the rest of the game is either sidescrolling or upscrolling, with the latter being particularly dangerous because you can't go back, so if you fall you die, have fun.

Theatrhythm: Final Bar Line

Currently playing this. There's very little to say about it, it sure is more Theatrhythm. Which, naturally, means I'm having a good time.

4

General Chat / Re: What games are you playing 2024? Battle strength determined by frilly outfits

« Last post by 074 on April 28, 2024, 12:47:42 AM »

Unicorn Overlord (complete)

8/10 game, I'm honestly extremely satisfied with this one and am willing to play it again at some point, but overall have some issues with the pacing in places.  I can accept a ho-hum writing job in a gameplay game, which this very much is, but there's just enough little problems I have that add up to some gripes overall.  I like the hell out of this game, I just think it could be better.

Probably the biggest is that it tries to have its cake and eat it too regarding the order in which you can deal with neighboring countries; giving you the illusion of freedom on that front while it's very much implying that you are supposed to go in a specified order.  This frankly could have been done better if they had gone further in either direction.  Either go for a fixed scenario order where you can have more in-depth storytelling or embrace the more open world approach they were teasing at.  Either could have worked, frankly.

I'm going to also take this time to vent a bit about how some of the localized chapters' stories played out.  Drakenhold's was probably the best fleshed out one.  The others didn't have enough time to cook - Bastorias could have gone from good to great if everything regarding Elgor and the Rat Bestrals wasn't constrained to a couple of encyclopedia entries and a last-chapter reveal.  Albion could have been decent had it expounded upon the small bit of local plot it got.  Elheim...good god Elheim was honestly the lowest part of the game, I don't know what the hell that needed.  I think ironically, Elheim and Albion suffered more from tying too much into the rather bare "collect the macguffins to do the big plot" aspect and not having enough of their own internal plot.  It also feels like the game needed one more chapter, so to speak where you could deal with the enemy using combined arms setups, but that may just be me.

Also Agrias Oaks syndrome is in full force here, don't act surprised.  Outside of a core few (mostly Scarlett, Lex, and Yahna), characters will disappear from the plot after the chapter they were introduced in is over, no surprises here.

I feel obligated to take a bit here to expound on just how much of a miracle it is that this game made it out in this level of quality.  Unicorn Overlord had a ten-year dev cycle, having originated as a PSVita title and going through not one but two large-scale refactors.  It basically limped across the finish line only because Kamitani funded the end of it himself.  I suppose to that end I can't blame its faults too much because there was barely enough money to make the game with by the end, so it had to be shipped out soon.

You know what games usually come out of those cycles?  Duke Nukem Forever.  Anthem.  Suicide Squad:Kill The Justice League.  Games that are just fucking terrible and out of touch with everything.  Shambling monstrosities that should have been put down years ago.  It's amazing that Unicorn Overlord basically beat the odds here and came out in the state that it did.

It's flawed, but I love it all the same.

5

Discussion / Re: Theorycrafting! (Because I like competitive metagames too much)

« Last post by metroid composite on April 27, 2024, 10:34:47 PM »

So...random observations.

Barbarian was banned a lot earlier on the second list--does this mean it should be banned earlier on the first list too?  And the conclusion I came to was no, because on the first list spells were doing a lot of singletarget damage thanks to Conjure Animals and Animate Objects.  Both are conditionally high damage (melee damage in general falls under a similar category--conditionally high damage).  And by the time Druid got banned on the first list, we entered a weird scenario where the party was just desperate for some versatility, which is not Barbarian's forte.

Another thing worth thinking about--I think there might be a world where Warlock moves above ranger on the second list.  The more I think about it, warlock can cover a lot of bases.  Like...with wizard gone, warlock is a reasonable one to cover rituals with pact of the tome.  With pact of the chain, warlock can have an invisible scout that can travel a long distance from them, kind of like a permanent arcane eye that doesn't take a spell slot.  Yeah, warlock is probably not the one concentrating on pass without trace, but it can fill various other utility and scouting roles that the party still very much needs to fill, the same way the party wants someone concentrating on PWT.

EDIT: yeah, I think Warlock does compare favourably damage-wise to a fighter who slows down their build by taking the ritual-caster feat.  (Favourably in terms of ranged damage--at least for a while cause they delay getting to 20 DEX for so long, eventually at the 4th ASI the fighter can pull into the lead).

There's still an argument for ranger here, and it's that yeah, you want someone with rituals, and yeah, you want someone concentrating on PWT for the party, but the gap between Warlock and a fighter with the ritual caster feat is maybe smaller than the gap between a ranger and...say, an Earth Genasi Eldritch Knight fighter, which is a larger gap.  And...yes, that does sound correct.  Fighter spends its subclass and its race learning PWT and getting enough spell slots to keep PWT up, but Ranger just has those things already, and can dedicate race to damage and subclass to damage and/or nice attack riders.

Funnily enough, one of the flashier builds involve Ranger dipping into warlock (Fey Wanderer Ranger taking a 1 level Undead Warlock dip to trigger beguiling twist).  Which...obviously doesn't help pick between the two.  But I think there's enough solid ranger builds that don't need warlock that the case is still reasonably strong.

6

Discussion / Re: Theorycrafting! (Because I like competitive metagames too much)

« Last post by metroid composite on April 27, 2024, 08:23:09 AM »

D&D 5e

Second ban-a-thon with different rules

(banning some problem subclasses and spells this time so that they don't make the list weird)


8. Bard

So I mean, is there a case to just ban out remaining martials?  Ehhh...there's still artificers and even some Bard subclasses with extra attack, and like...dealing damage with spells sure is a thing too.  These options won't deal as much as a monk or a rogue, but they won't be lightyears behind.

But it is worth keeping an eye on damage options still--with the assumption that summons that summon 8+ units being off the table, in addition to that blocking conjure animals, this rule also blocks animate objects, so it is pretty hard for spellcasters to deal single-target damage.

Actually, one sec, I want to check how much of a ranged single target damage dealer Cleric can be with Summon Celestial and a cantrip (Toll the Dead I guess, with Blessed Strikes).  Mmm...ok same general ballpark, but slightly less damage than a steady aim rogue, or a gunner Monk staying at range.  (Calculated at level 11, although admittedly not using a 6th level slot; 4th or 5th level.  Came out about 33 damage).

More damage than a ranged artificer though, lol.  And admittedly the versatility is nice--Cleric is mostly about the melee AoE damage, but can switch comfortably to ranged singletarget, and keep up with...well, what's left of the damage builds anyway.

Granted, I did ban warlock earlier in a similar position, but warlock was actually out-damaging fighter for noticeable level stretches, while also getting utility like shoves.  Cleric is still dealing less ranged damage than monk/rogue, with a lot less shoving, and it still comes fairly late (level 9--warlock had summons starting at level 5).  But it's enough that I don't really think we're looking at monk or rogue for a ban right now.

So...yeah, we're probably looking at a caster then.  And...it's probably Bard again for the same reasons as before.  Last real motivation to build CHA (having someone in the party with CHA is valuable).  Magical Secrets makes them the only place to get...well a lot of spells that are locked out due to previous bans on Warlock/Wizard/Sorcerer, like Counterspell for example.  Bardic inspiration is the best remaining way to protect party member saving throws.

9. Druid

With Bard gone there is some real thought about whether Artificer should go next.  They are sort-of worse bards, but there's a lot of the same arguments around them.  Last way to build INT.  Last way to protect party saving throws.

The case for clerics is as follows: they are pretty monstrous early, level 1-4 when their weapon attacks are fine and they get to have spells on top of solid attacks, especially picking something like a Light cleric can really emphasize how good they are at low levels.  And they do eventually keep up just fine on ranged damage through stuff like Summon Celestial.

The case for Druids are as follows: clerics tend to be the most straightforward damage dealing of the casters.  Not one of them gets Wall of Stone.  Only Tempest gets Sleet Storm.  Only Trickery gets Polymorph.  Only Trickery gets Pass Without Trace.  Only Nature Domain gets Plant Growth.  Clerics mostly can't teleport party members out of danger--granted most druids can't either, but I'd be inclined to pick up Wildfire Druid in a party like this, and they're teleport city.  Clerics are mostly damage dealers, a role that monk and rogue already fill.  (Well Clerics heal too, but so do Druids).

Yeah, I find that pretty compelling--despite both being full casters, Druid spends more time doing a more supporting role, which is more of the unique thing that would be hard to replace in this party.  Cleric can probably be argued the overall best damage dealer among remaining classes, but that is replaceable at the end of the day.

Actually, worth noting, Druid gets pretty good summon X options from Tasha's.  Like...I knew about Summon Beast and Summon Fey, but sort-of wrote them off as not great due to struggling with damage resistances.  There's summon elemental too-but that one also seems like it would struggle with damage resistances.  But I didn't realize but Druids do get Summon Draconic Spirit from Fizzban's and that one is uh...quite good.  Makes a 30 foot cone breath weapon attack on top of the normal attacks for a summon (and you can pick basically any element).  Has 3 more AC than a typical Tasha's summon, and 5 damage resistances (you pick from 10 actually).  10 more HP than Summon Celestial.  Yeah.  Not ranged, granted, and the claws can be resisted, but nonetheless arguably the best summon.

10. Cleric

Is this where I just say "Cleric is the last full caster, and you want a diverse party, so it's the next to go?"

Hmm...I mean, I think Artificers are in the conversation here.  Not really because of their spellcasting, I mean, yeah, they get wizard spells like Fly and Haste, but there's no way that would keep up with Cleric--just half caster things where these spells are way less exciting when they use your highest level spell slot at level 9.  That said, they do get Web at level 5, and then can infuse Pipes of Haunting at level 6.  And can infuse winged boots at level 10.  And then at level 11 with spell storing item can have any martial that's not using their concentration concentrate on Web.

And...yeah, that is somewhat compelling, that maybe artificers bring more of what the party is lacking to the table.

But...I think some cleric subclasses just end up bailing out clerics here.  Trickery Domain cleric in particular with Polymorph, Dimension Door, Pass Without Trace.  Order Domain Cleric brings Slow, and...like...it's not the greatest combo or anything, but Order Domain Cleric can give a reaction attack to a rogue letting them sneak attack a second time, which...there's only four classes left, you probably do have a rogue in the party.

And there's just the part where Clerics are unusually good at low levels, good equipment, getting most of their key spells very early.  And outdamaging certainly ranged Artificers once they get Summon Celestial.

And there's the part where AoE damage is certainly a role that is sometimes good to fill, and Cleric fills that role.  Not that artificers are without AoE--pipes of haunting is AoE status.  Web is AoE status.  In the end it's all crowd control and mook clearing.  But Spirit Guardians is pretty good at clearing out mooks, and sometimes it's better to kill them than to just hold them in place.

Artificers keep it somewhat close, they do bring a lot of battlefield control support kind of moves, but yeah I think they're still overall outclassed by Clerics.

11. Artificer

They are the one remaining utility and battlefield control source, so just a prime choice to ban next.  Monk and Rogue kinda similar to each other so neither ban is all that painful.

12. Monk

Yeah, as discussed in the first list, all-Rogue party just unusually vulnerable, so anything else will get banned before them.  And...also as discussed in the first list, Monk fills a lot of the missing roles better--better healer than any monk, better pass without trace bot, better at kiting cause they don't rely on Steady Aim.  Have funny tactics with running up walls and across water.

13. Rogue

All Rogue party, if there's ever something preventing them from sneak attacking (attacking at range with disadvantage) are at serious risk of TPK.

7

Discussion / Re: Theorycrafting! (Because I like competitive metagames too much)

« Last post by metroid composite on April 27, 2024, 06:38:14 AM »

D&D 5e

Second ban-a-thon with different rules

(banning some problem subclasses and spells)

5. Warlock

So...I don't think any of the builds that try to incorporate pass without trace into a build that is otherwise a martial character are all that overwhelmingly good at this point.  It's like...Earth Genasi Eldritch Knight, Earth Genasi Artificer, Shadow Monk.

Eldritch Knight does end up dealing the most of these but only by a substantial margin at level 11.

What about builds that don't shoehorn in Pass Without Trace?

So...one thing that's interesting is that Warlock in general between levels 7-10 actually mildly outdamages ranged fighter assuming they use a basic Tasha's summon spell and eldritch blast.  And that's without using their bonus action (which could be used for various things, but shoves from the telekinetic feat seem like an okay choice).  And presumably you're getting some value out of stuff like Repelling Blast as well.  The summons last an hour, and two can be used per short rest, and there's a flying one with 150 foot range (Summon Aberration Beholderkin).

Fighter does pull back into the lead generally as a ranged damage dealer at level 11, when they get their third attack, and around when +2 magic gear become available.  But Warlock also has additional things going on at level 11 (a 3rd spell slot per short rest, which could be used on an AoE spell like fireball or synaptic static.  A 6th level mystic arcanum).

Warlock is an okay dip on Bard, obviously, but also 1 level of Undead Warlock is a pretty reasonable dip on any ranged attacker (when you hit with an attack, you have a chance to cause the frightened condition which means that enemy can't approach and wastes their turn).

So ok, by comparison, what is fighter better at?  Fighter arguably has a better plan for using Pass Without Trace in Earth Genasi Eldritch Knight.  Fighter is also a good dip on a lot of builds--the one remaining way to get a fighting style for example.  Lots of builds want the 2nd level of fighter too for action surge.  Lots of builds want the 3rd level of fighter too for battle master.  Fighter/Barbarian is good damage, although forced to be melee which comes with limitations, and doesn't have the option of incorporating concentration cause rage is incompatible with that--not the end of the world, but limiting.

I guess...how much damage is gained by being a level 13 build that is Barbarian 2, Fighter 11, and assuming that rage and reckless attack are being used?  Hm....honestly it's pretty substantial.  Like...compared to a Fighter 11 just using hand crossbows without advantage, it's like 46 damage to 68.  But...of course, with all the downsides outlined (Enforced melee build.  Rage won't always be up, only 2 uses in this case.  If you have any spellcasting can't concentrate while raging.  Enemies hit back hard when you reckless attack.  Won't deal this damage round 1 cause bonus action is used raging.  Ranged builds can get advantage themselves on occasion, and they'll be around 67 damage per round when they do).

I guess...one other question is how much damage is gained by that build being multiclass?  So damaged gained by being Barbarian 2 Fighter 11 instead of just Barbarian 13?

Well...with no subclass (which I think is fair cause I assumed no subclass for fighter) I've got about...56 damage for the barbarian.  But I mean, add in various miscellaneous goodies.  5 rages instead of 2.  +10 feet movement.  Advantage on initiative.  Move up to half your movement when you enter a rage.  A couple of skill checks.  Some durability boosting (more HP, and if you drop to 0 HP, sometimes stay at 1 HP instead).

If we add in subclasses, something like Zealot can add about 10 damage per round.  Battlemaster using precision attacks is going to add something like 90 damage per short rest--so it depends how much combat you have between short rests, really, but subclasses adding similar-ish amounts I think.

So I mean...the fighter multiclass looks a little better overall than the mono-class barb, but like...I think it's close enough that a fighter ban doesn't substantially hurt barbarian.

Is there a world where the ban is just barbarian, though?  I'm thinking very specifically of Giants barbarian here.  They are one of the higher damage barb subclasses.  And they are also very good at thrown weapons--a lot of melee builds suffer if the enemy flies or is too far away, and fighting at range still isn't ideal for them, but they're a lot better than all other barbs.

Mmm...not sure.  Like...Rune Knight also makes a solid melee fighter.  It doesn't pump out the same sustained damage in the absence of reckless attack, but getting advantage at melee isn't too hard--can just replace a weapon attack with a shove prone.  And Rune Knight even without getting advantage can still burst a bit harder with action surge if needed.  And as far as melee builds go, there's cleric too--they're more AoE, but tend to be in melee for sure.

Mmm...no, I don't think the ban is a melee build.

Which brings me back to ranged damage, and brings me back to warlock, with relatively low investment, like not even using their bonus action (just a Tasha's Summon Undead or Summon Aberration) dealing more ranged damage than fighter builds levels 7-10, and only slightly less at 11+, but with the compensation of an additional 5th level slot every short rest, and Mystic Arcanum.

I guess the one case for fighter is that specifically battlemaster, and maybe also samurai are more damage-focused subclasses.  Whereas something like Geenie is adding 4 damage per round.  But...I think claiming either of those subclasses add more than Geenie overall is a bit of a tough sell.  Geenie gets to fly concentration free a lot.  Geenie gets to pull the party into their geenie vessel (which can be a ring worn by an invisible familiar) and give the full party a 10 minute short rest.

Is there any obvious ban in full caster land?  Mmm...honestly, I feel like Druid and Bard are sufficiently evenly matched for now.  Like Bard thanks to magical secrets will end up with slightly better spells.  But Druid ends up with slightly better subclasses (I'm looking at something like Wildfire Druid compared to something like Glamour Bard.  They both are good at repositioning lots of allies, but Wildfire is a bit better at it because they don't use a limited resource and the allies don't use their reaction, and wildfire has a bunch of other really good subclass abilities like extra spells prepared--not all of those spells are good, but we can probably think of that as +5 spell preparations).

So...yeah, think it's warlock.

6. Fighter

So...okay, with warlock gone, it's probably fighter next right?  Like...last easy access to fighting styles.  Best range damage.  Action Surge good.

Even for Pass Without Trace builds...while no pass without trace bot build is super impressive, I do think Earth Genasi Eldritch Knight does it okay, and brings notably more damage than options like Shadow Monk with no access to fighter or ranger dips, and more damage than Earth Genasi Artificers (for all that artificers bring more support).

I don't think anything has really changed on the caster end in terms of anything super needing a ban.  Bard might care about the loss of warlock some, but I do still think the mono class bard and mono class Druid comparison doesn't look like the gaps are all that large.  And Cleric is in the mix there somewhere too muddying the waters.

7. Barbarian

I think it's around this time last time that I banned Bard for filling in gaps in the spell list thanks to magical secrets.  But...I'm feeling this less this time, maybe because there's more casters still left un-banned thanks to Cleric being around, so like if you want something like spirit guardians you don't need to grab it through magical secrets.

And also...now that I've run a few more numbers, I'm really extra side-eyeing barbarian.  Like...yeah, sure, the damage a rogue or a gun wielding monk can do is fine, and it's ranged, that's very important, but Barbarians are beating the damage by 60% (before subclass considerations).  And like...one of the highest damage subclasses (Giant Barbarian) also specializes in having additional reach and throwing weapons so isn't too vulnerable to the things that normally plague melee builds like being stuck out of range.

And with fighter banned there's no longer something like a rune knight you can make if you want a melee character.

Just feels like the ban that will be hardest to replace among remaining classes is Barbarian.  Not necessarily that what it's doing is the most powerful thing, but damage is valuable and it is the hardest to replicate among remaining classes.

8

Discussion / Re: Theorycrafting! (Because I like competitive metagames too much)

« Last post by metroid composite on April 26, 2024, 11:24:01 PM »

D&D 5e

Second ban-a-thon with different rules

This time, with any subclass a DM could reasonably object to excluded (Chronurgist, Echo Knight, Graviturgist, Peace, Twilight, Gloomstalker, Hexblade, Eloquence, Moon).  Wildmount spells excluded.  And swarm strategies that can take too long at tables excluded (conjure animals with 16 animals.  Animate Dead with large numbers of skeleton archers).

1. Paladin
Paladin was the first ban on the previous list, so yeah, guess what, it's still going to be the first ban on this list too cause there's still no replacement for the Paladin aura, and Paladin is somehow very minimally hurt by all the bans.  The Hexblade ban makes paladin a little bit sad cause they can't attack with Charisma, but otherwise Paladin is largely unaffected, and a 2 level dip in Warlock for eldritch blast is still a perfectly reasonable way to build around Charisma.

2. Wizard
Are Rangers still good without Gloomstalker?  Yeah, they're still good.  But they don't necessarily stand out as the stand-alone choice for concentrating on pass without trace.

Whereas banning Wizard does make a party struggle a bit more with easily getting rituals, getting access to nice utility spells like passwall and arcane eye.  They can still do it, but at a notable cost.

And like...yeah, Chronurgist Wizard shenanigans aren't boosting Wizard anymore, but dipping 2 levels of Wizard for War Wizard to get +4 to saves as a reaction is certainly is still a thing that characters might want to consider.

It's also worth noting, in a big enough party you probably want someone with high INT and good INT saves.  You want someone to not get shut down by a Mindflayer's Mind Blast, who can prevent a TPK in a situation like that.  Obviously an Artificer can fill that role, but "a typical artificer is a downgrade from a typical wizard" is not a super hot take.

3. Sorcerer

So...I was starting to think if one of Fighter or Ranger should be up next but...no, now that I'm looking through the options I'm pretty sure it's sorcerer.

If hexblade is banned, and wizard is banned, suddenly the sorcerer is the only easy way to get the shield spell.  (Other sources would be 3 levels of artificer, or the Githzerai race, or 6 levels of Lore bard, or 10 levels of any other bard).

I've heard the shield spell called "mandatory for optimisation", and do see 1 level sorcerer dips pretty often on optimised clerics, druids, etc.

Pretty sure banning sorcerer hurts the most here.

4. Ranger

So...what's going on on the mage side?  If you want shield...you can make a bard, probably specifically a lore bard or else you wouldn't get it till level 10.  Or you can pick the Githzerai race.  Or you can dip 3 levels of artificer, which...honestly, artillerist artificer is not a bad 3 level dip, the protector cannon is quite good, but you would mostly want to do this on a class that focused more on upcasting than getting new high level spells (so like Cleric could do it I suppose).

I don't know that there's an obvious ban that really hurts here, though.  Even if you really feel you have to incorporate shield into the build, Githzerai are right there.  Bard and Druid have notably more diverse spell lists than Cleric, so I think once one of them is banned the other gets banned, but I don't think either one sticks out right now.

Warlock...exists.  Bard dips into warlock are a lot less attractive when they can't get medium armor and shields out of the deal, granted.  There's no hexblade so I am very unconcerned about warlocks outstripping martials for damage.  Maybe there's a case that some mono-classed warlock would be very much missed?  Like Geenie maybe?  Dunno.

What's going on on the martial side?  The general plan of being a martial with a ranged attack who just spends their concentration on Pass Without Trace and shoots things is still a good plan.  Hmm...if ranger does it, what subclass would be the pick?  I guess Swarmkeeper makes the most sense to me?  Just...good cost-free stuff to do when you hit.  And you'd probably do some multiclassing once you got level 5 in ranger.  A shadow monk can also do it, and then also probably multiclasses after level 6.

I think of note is that both of these builds probably do dip into fighter if they're looking for the most damage--fighter offers action surge and subclasses.  Specifically battlemaster fighter is a good damage dip.  Whereas the monk probably now is uninterested in dipping into Ranger, and the Ranger is similarly uninterested in dipping into Monk.

That said, either of these builds ignoring fighter and multiclassing rogue instead doesn't sound unreasonable to me.  I also think banning fighter hurts the monk build more than the ranger build--the ranger already has archery fighting style, and even continuing with mono-class ranger is not outlandish--the new 10th level ranger feature from Tasha's is very good (bonus action invisibility so advantage on your attacks).

I'm also kind-of thinking that the ranger is...while the gap is smaller than the gap between Gloomstalker and Shadow Monk, I do think there's still a gap there.  Ranger can be a healer and a pass without trace spammer and have archery fighting style and extra attack all by level 5.  Monk can get all those things, but either not on the same subclass, or needs multiclassing and comes together at higher levels. Plus rangers get some extra bonuses on hit from being a swarmkeeper, while also having some other nice stuff like expertise in a skill and some free casting of information gathering spells.  Oh and d10 HP.  Rangers would also have an easier time benefitting from Shield if they did pick it up from somewhere (a multiclass or a race).

There is alternatively the option to be an artificer with a race that can cast Pass Without Trace (Earth Genasi).  But...there's no fighting style that comes with being an artificer so you'd need to dip for that.  Being an Earth Genasi comes at a cost of not being variant human.  And artificers have fewer features built around weapon attacks (e.g. 3rd level feature of rangers often gives bonuses for making weapon attacks.  All rangers get a 10th level feature that's very good for weapon attacks).

Yeah, I think Rangers are still noticeably standing out on the weapon attack side, whereas nothing else is ultra standing out.

9

Discussion / Re: Theorycrafting! (Because I like competitive metagames too much)

« Last post by metroid composite on April 26, 2024, 09:48:33 PM »

Oh I mean, in terms of the DM stepping in and making a ruling, I think it's very reasonable to outright ban Peace and Twilight domain clerics, and do a small edit to what Chronurgy Wizards are allowed to do (limit Arcane Abeyance to only casting 1 action spells, for example).

But there's a problem of where exactly do you draw the line?

A DM could also reasonably ban Gloomstalker Ranger--that's probably good for the overall health of the game--and suddenly you'd see a much bigger variety of rangers, and wouldn't need to worry about designing the storyline so that the characters rarely fight in darkness.  And yeah, if Gloomstalker Ranger doesn't exist, Ranger's tier ranking probably slips.

A DM could also reasonably be like "I'm sick of seeing hexblades, no hexblades!" and yeah, that probably affects Warlock's tier rankings.  Suddenly you can't dip warlock to learn the shield spell and get proficiency in medium armor and shields.

A lot of DMs just don't allow any Wildmount content, because it tends to be really weird with the rules.  Echo Knight jumps to mind--officially the echo can move in any direction including straight up into the air, and is not a creature so can't be targeted with certain spells and doesn't trigger attacks of opportunity.  Just...weird rules-wise, independent of any balance concerns (although it's also very strong of course).  Banning wildmount content also happens to ban Chronurgist.

And...honestly, I would totally get it if a DM was like "I don't like Eloquence bard; when there's an Eloquence Bard in the party, the rest of the party stops talking in social situations cause they know the bard can't fail".

And...I could see a DM objecting to Moon Druid at some very specific levels (level 2 one-shots.  Level 20 one-shots).

And...some DMs do ban Conjure Animals and similar spells just because it takes too long to resolve the actions of 16 summons (less of an issue on some digital tabletops).

I guess I can't really imagine a DM banning any additional subclasses beyond those 9, however.

I suppose I could do a second ban-a-thon assuming those 9 subclasses are off the table (Chronurgist, Echo Knight, Graviturgist, Peace, Twilight, Gloomstalker, Hexblade, Eloquence, Moon).  Also additionally banning any spells from wildmount, and any swarm style playstyles (conjure animals.  Creating skeleton armies with animate dead.  Etc).

10

Discussion / Re: Theorycrafting! (Because I like competitive metagames too much)

« Last post by SnowFire on April 26, 2024, 05:31:14 AM »

But if I'm thinking of "what's the best way to protect saving throws with Paladin and Wizard banned" it's not a bard with bardic inspiration, it's not an artificer.  It's any party member grabbing a 1 level Peace cleric dip.

I get that this is assuming a "power player" perspective, but I feel like if there's one area where this really shouldn't be assumed and the GM should step up, it'd be the Cleric class, and especially for something like Peace as a domain.  Obviously Level 1 Clerics are fairly easy to justify via backstory, but if an existing character wants to take a level in Cleric strictly for what provides the best benefits in battle, I as a DM would say great, your domain is apparently War without some really good explainin'.  (And yes, I know that 5e is a little less eager to just have the DM veto stuff, but I'd say this is an exception.)