Just because someone isn't doing something to directly benefit YOU doesn't mean they arent being helpful to the party or that they made the "wrong choice".
Bless is a very nice spell, but you are a barbarian -- you have reckless attack to boost your accuracy if needed, and if the enemies aren't especially difficult to hit to begin with then bless isnt as valuable a spell to have up considering that it uses your concentration
I didn't say that they made the wrong choice, just that it's the only gripe I had with it. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Reckless Attack works great for when I don't care about getting hit. It's getting closer to the point where that'll be more frequent than caring which will mean that it's more of a moot point for me and a bigger deal for our Eldritch Blaster and our sneak attacker. However, Bless still works with Reckless Attack since that 1 to 4 increase can still lead to occasional hits that wouldn't have gone through instead.
Part of the benefit of bless over bane is that it for sure affects 3 allies (more if upcast) and those allies get that benefit on all enemies. Bane, on the other hand, forces a save that the creature can succeed on. If I am using Reckless Attack, those creatures still get advantage on their attacks against me, even if they fail their save. Two chances to get a 14 or a 16 are reasonable, even with a -1 to -4. And has been said before, dead enemies deal zero damage. If I'm able to blockade the creatures in a room, the other party members aren't even getting targeted, especially when they only move into view of the doorway when they attack. It's much more beneficial when we're in an open battlefield.
Bane also only affects 3 targets unless you upcast. Those targets attacks against all party members are reduced, which is nice. For some reason, I thought that the targets could make the save attempt on succeeding turns, which is not the case and improves the situation. Bane does not transfer to other enemies when they die.
As I see it, Bless is the superior choice in an attack dominate group. The defensive aspects may be wasted, but the increase isn't always noticeable on the bane side since it may only affect one party member and there is no guarentee that the save will fail and dead enemies deal no damage. Assuming that both are prepared, I would almost always choose Bless in the situations described.
Lastly, I'll reemphasize that it's only a gripe that I have and I've only suggested Bless once and let him play how he wants to play. I haven't pointed out many of the points that I have here because it's irrelevant. If he has more fun with Bane, then he has more fun with Bane. We haven't had a TPK, possibly because of the times where Bane has reduced attacks against me. Just because I think that it's the suboptimal choice doesn't mean that I think that it's the wrong choice.
This is kind of a perfect example of expecting a type of play from the Cleric. If the enemies you are fighting really aren't casting spells against you, Bane might be the better choice as half your party will be casting spells on the enemies. So, depriving the enemy of potential damage and making them more susceptible to spells could be seen as more advantageous than buffing 3 players for hit when only 2 need it all the time and buffing for saves that no one needs. Bane is damage reduction and can be way more effective than healing.
I didn't say that Bane was a bad spell, just that I prefer that Bless was cast. I'm simply weighing the benefits of each and feel that Bless was the better spell when both were prepared and he would be using his concentration on one or the other.
This is kind of a perfect example of expecting a type of play from the Cleric. If the enemies you are fighting really aren't casting spells against you, Bane might be the better choice as half your party will be casting spells on the enemies. So, depriving the enemy of potential damage and making them more susceptible to spells could be seen as more advantageous than buffing 3 players for hit when only 2 need it all the time and buffing for saves that no one needs. Bane is damage reduction and can be way more effective than healing.
I didn't say that Bane was a bad spell, just that I prefer that Bless was cast. I'm simply weighing the benefits of each and feel that Bless was the better spell when both were prepared and he would be using his concentration on one or the other.
It's this type of attitude that results in people thinking that Clerics should be healers - the desire to tell other people how to play their characters and to want them to play in a manner that is optimal for the party, rather than in the manner that thematically fits with their character or is the most fun for them. If Bane is a better thematic fit for his character, let him play it that way.
In general, people avoid trying to tell the fellow members of their party how to play their characters, and with good reason. D&D is better when we don't tell other people how to play their character. There are instances where it is important to tell other people how to play their character - such as "don't pick a fight with the town guards and get the entire party thrown into jail just because your character has the criminal background," but when it comes to Bless vs Bane, it's inappropriate to be judging your teammates' spell selection on what's really a rather minor strategy question.
Specifically, your character is running around with a fairly low AC (and often giving enemies advantage when they attack him), whereas your teammates have a higher AC, and therefore Bane gives them much more of a benefit than it does to you. A Cleric with 18 AC will definitely appreciate an enemy subtracting a D4 from their attack roll because it will cause a significant portion of the hits into misses. A Barbarian with a much lower AC facing enemies that have advantage will get much less of a benefit from Bane making enemies subtract a D4 from their attack roll. You need to understand how your selfishness and focusing on how the spell will affect you is influencing what you want him to do, and that you're more worried about your own character than you are about the strategy for the party in general. If his character has a high AC and is forcing enemies to do saving throws each round, then it makes perfect sense for him to be using Bane. You're weighing the benefits for your character, but you're not accounting for the far more important question which is weighing the benefits for the guy actually casting the spell.
You are free to have an opinion on which is better, but there is a difference when it comes to which should be used. I reiterate that if the party is not facing difficulty hitting the targets, and the enemies are not forcing frequent saving throws, then bless is not particularly important. It is a good spell, and it has both defensive and offensive benefits, but so does Bane.
Your cleric may actually be trying to help your low ac character by reducing the enemy's attack rolls. In addition, any spells cast on targets with bane effectively have their spell dc raised by 1d4, which is amazingly powerful in many cases -- it can mean the difference between one round of hold person/monster and several when used in a party with multiple casters. It also greatly boosts damage spells like fireball, leading to faster clears of encounters.
There are situations where a specific spell may have been the clear choice that would save the day, but bless v bane isnt usually one of those situations as additional hits by your team are roughly analogous to fewer hits by your enemy, and additional successful saves by your team are roughly analogous to fewer successful saves by the enemy. Action economy is the key to combat in the majority of cases. The fewer wasted actions a side has, the more likely that side is to win.
I can understand that if you had bless you might be less likely to use reckless, but at the end of the day a lower AC essentially helps you tank. Having a low AC and not getting hit is essentially the best way to tank -- you are a melee combatant that they have easy access to and have a decent chance of hitting without interference, so you are a very compelling target. This keeps your casters out of danger. Your cleric using bane essentially helps YOU by occasionally making the enemy miss, while also helping themself and the rest of the casters land saving-throw based spells. It might not be your preference, but it is a good strategy. Its not like they are wasting their concentration and spell slots casting Locate Object randomly in the middle of combat when the party isnt even after a macguffin
It's this type of attitude that results in people thinking that Clerics should be healers - the desire to tell other people how to play their characters and to want them to play in a manner that is optimal for the party, rather than in the manner that thematically fits with their character or is the most fun for them. If Bane is a better thematic fit for his character, let him play it that way.
In general, people avoid trying to tell the fellow members of their party how to play their characters, and with good reason. D&D is better when we don't tell other people how to play their character. There are instances where it is important to tell other people how to play their character - such as "don't pick a fight with the town guards and get the entire party thrown into jail just because your character has the criminal background," but when it comes to Bless vs Bane, it's inappropriate to be judging your teammates' spell selection on what's really a rather minor strategy question.
Specifically, your character is running around with a fairly low AC (and often giving enemies advantage when they attack him), whereas your teammates have a higher AC, and therefore Bane gives them much more of a benefit than it does to you. A Cleric with 18 AC will definitely appreciate an enemy subtracting a D4 from their attack roll because it will cause a significant portion of the hits into misses. A Barbarian with a much lower AC facing enemies that have advantage will get much less of a benefit from Bane making enemies subtract a D4 from their attack roll. You need to understand how your selfishness and focusing on how the spell will affect you is influencing what you want him to do, and that you're more worried about your own character than you are about the strategy for the party in general. If his character has a high AC and is forcing enemies to do saving throws each round, then it makes perfect sense for him to be using Bane. You're weighing the benefits for your character, but you're not accounting for the far more important question which is weighing the benefits for the guy actually casting the spell.
I'm going to assume you didn't read the post immediately preceding the one that you quoted based on some of the comments that you made.
Otherwise, you would know that I made the suggestion one time and left it alone. I'll assume that you didn't read the post where I mentioned that the player is a new player (my nephew, in fact). I like when people give suggestions on ways to improve because I don't always see the benefits of the option they presented. I'll give newer players suggestions for the same reason and then let them do with it what they want. He tried bless, apparently didn't like it as much. He's having fun and I'm not telling him how to do it otherwise since that one time. He's also having fun with the Toll the Dead spell and I'm glad that Bane is helping him have fun with that.
My complaints about Bane do factor heavily into what my character can do better, but I'm not looking at it the way that I do because they affect me the way that they do. As I said, if I was in his shoes, I would use bless. It wouldn't be optimal for my character but would be better for the party (in my estimation) because more hits means more damage out, means enemies falling faster, and less targets to the primary damage taker. You know, the theme about healing being inefficient at all, dead enemies dealing zero damage.
And you are right, it's a minor strategic decision. I apologize if I've given any indication that I think it's otherwise. I certainly don't feel like it's a big deal and don't understand why anyone would think otherwise. The fact that it's my only gripe means that things are going well. I even stated that the fact that he is using Bane may be the reason why we haven't had an unconscious player yet. It's also possible that it's because I'm taking lots of targets instead of the other players. It could be that the DM is fudging numbers so that no one goes down.
The fact that I used gripe and am having this ramroaded down my throat is telling.
Gripe:
express a complaint or grumble about something, especially something trivial.
The fact of the matter is that I made the character the way that I did. I'm testing out two weapon fighting with it, and the great axe, and sword and board to see how things work, since this is my first actual play time in 5e that's not behind the screen.
I'm seeing what the results of that are and I'm adjusting my playstyle with the character to accommodate. That means more sword and board and less offense including judicious use of Reckless Attack. That would likely be the same with bless as with bane. We just hit level 3. I'll get to see what happens with path benefits. I went zealot while considering bear and wolf totem, as well as storm herald and ancestral guardians. I nearly went with wolf until I realized that the advantage only applies to melee attacks. Bear lost out because we're running LMoP and the additional resistances may not matter and ancestral guardian wasn't holding much appeal since I've taken more targets than anyone else. I'm undecided about 4, but leaning strength, with con or dex a close next highest option, and GWM a distant 3rd place.
I looked over the spell selections that my nephew and the warlock (my niece) made and haven't said a thing about those choices, even to remind my niece that she can change out a spell on level up. I'm not the DM, so I'll leave it up to him to point that out. I'm not just giving out advice all the time because I think they are doing it wrong, but I do give out advice periodically if I think they've overlooked something.
But I'm sure the vast majority of this context makes no difference to many people, just that I did it "wrong". That seems to be a general MO around here (not specifically at you Gabriel).
So, I will agree with you about Bless. Generally speaking, I like it better as well. In the specific scenario you mention with a Grave cleric, not as much, especially at low level. As I mentioned before, Bane is always prepared as Grave. I wouldn't personally have Bane and Bless prepared when I could have a completely different spell prepared instead of two that are practically identical in the big picture. Even after apologizing, you still go on to say that YOU would have both spells prepared and would cast Bless if you were in your nephews place, to benefit the party over yourself.
I feel you are still too egocentric to consider the possibility that maybe Bane and Spell X are a better combo than Bane and Bless. Consider the choice you madel revolving around your character. You had the option to take primal paths that have abilites that protect of buff you all allies but, you felt that sub-optimal and instead chose Zealot, which is really only about your character, not teamplay. The exception being one 10th level ability. To partiality quote you, "if I were in his shoes", I would do X to benefit the party. As we see above, you clearly didn't.
Believe it or not, I agree with you on most of what you said. I'm having a hard time deciding where all of the vitriol is coming from in regards to my post (certainly not just your replies). I'm going to skip by your first paragraph since I think it goes without saying that it's spot on.
Your cleric may actually be trying to help your low ac character by reducing the enemy's attack rolls. In addition, any spells cast on targets with bane effectively have their spell dc raised by 1d4, which is amazingly powerful in many cases -- it can mean the difference between one round of hold person/monster and several when used in a party with multiple casters. It also greatly boosts damage spells like fireball, leading to faster clears of encounters.
Certainly. We hit level 3 at the end of our last session, so no 2nd level spells just like no 3rd level spells. The Cleric's current spell list excepting 2nd level spells that wouldn't have been available at the time and I don't recall any other changes other than him having Healing Word: Guidance, Light which he's cast on a rock and put it into a tube to create a flashlight, Spare the Dying, Toll the Dead which has been his primary attack, Bane, Bless, Cure Wounds which he might have used to replace Healing Word, Detect Magic, False Life, Guiding Bolt, and Shield of Faith. The Warlock has Eldritch Blast her main attack, Infestation which she's used twice, Spare the Dying cause Undying patron, Hex and Ray of Sickness. She went tomelock at third and added Guidance, Mind Sliver (UA) which is a save, and Toll the Dead plus she chose Cause Fear as her new spell at second or third (and still needs to choose another spell otherwise). Since she has only cast Ray of Sickness for leveled spells (aside from Mage Armor from Armor of Shadows) I'm not sure when she picked up Cause Fear. One of the two times that I remember her choosing Infestation was as the very first attack in the town battle against the Redbrands.
As you can see neither of them had a lot of choices for forcing saves and the Warlock used Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast most of the time. The other two characters in the party are me and a rogue focusing on her shortbow from range and only mixing it up in melee during the town battle and a little during Cragmaw hideout. As far as our offense goes, most of the time using Bless would have affected more players and would have done so 100% of the time since it doesn't force a save to hit. Against Goblins (7 hp, AC 13 or 15, +4 to hit and 5(1d6+2) damage with either the shortbow or the scimitar), not a big deal. Against the Redbrands (16 hp, 14 AC but boasting Multiattack with +4 to hit and 5(1d6+2) damage with their shortsword) and the group of three Bugbears (27 hp, AC 16, +4 to hit and 11(2d8+2) damage with a morning star), it became a little harder to kill them and taking hits was a bigger deal considering that the possible average damage of 10 or 11 per round per creature considering that at level 2 our characters had 15 HP (rogue), 17 HP (cleric), 15 HP (Warlock) and my 25 HP. Bane helps to offset some or all of the to hit bonuses to those attacks, but has zero effect against crits, only affected a maximum of 3 creatures (probably a little less than 1 in the three on average saved). Aside from the town battle, I was plugging a door while presenting as little attacking area as possible and preventing them from gaining access to the other party members. The cleric's Toll the Dead and the "increase to my AC" were the only affects that were being felt. I simply felt like getting a chance for the rogue, Warlock, and me to have a better chance to hit on those attacks would have been better, particularly when it would have meant that I would have attacked recklessly earlier being more confident that we'd make more hits and possibly increasing my crits (which are nicer since I'm a Half-Orc). It also doesn’t help that the DM was giving partial cover to the other bugbears and ruffians with the Rogue’s and Warlock’s attacks because of me standing in the door. I’m not 100% sure that should have been a thing, but it was close enough that I haven’t bothered to look it up yet. If the Warlock had switched to Infestation at that time, it would have been better to have Bane up
The net effect may have been 0 and that's why it's only a gripe for me and I only made the suggestion one time with Bless. I've literally never said that Bane was always worse, just that it was worse for circumstances that we were in. I also didn't say that it was something that hampered our party, didn't provide benefit to the party or anything else.
There are situations where a specific spell may have been the clear choice that would save the day, but bless v bane isnt usually one of those situations as additional hits by your team are roughly analogous to fewer hits by your enemy, and additional successful saves by your team are roughly analogous to fewer successful saves by the enemy. Action economy is the key to combat in the majority of cases. The fewer wasted actions a side has, the more likely that side is to win.
This is spot on and part of the reason that I prefer bless in cases that we were in. It helps to not waste actions and we were having some spotty rolls. Quite a few of those rolls would have hit had Bless been up. The fact that I prefer bless is a moot point because I don't have the data to know how many misses were caused by Bane. As you said, it roughly evens out. The group of bugbears was only three so they could have been all under the effect of Bane or a couple may have made their save. The Ruffians had in their number which means that at least one wouldn't have been affected. Unless the DM tells you which one that is, you could possibly save that one for last. That is not a problem with Bless. The fact that none of the enemies were forcing saves is a point against Bless.
I can understand that if you had bless you might be less likely to use reckless, but at the end of the day a lower AC essentially helps you tank. Having a low AC and not getting hit is essentially the best way to tank -- you are a melee combatant that they have easy access to and have a decent chance of hitting without interference, so you are a very compelling target. This keeps your casters out of danger. Your cleric using bane essentially helps YOU by occasionally making the enemy miss, while also helping themself and the rest of the casters land saving-throw based spells. It might not be your preference, but it is a good strategy. Its not like they are wasting their concentration and spell slots casting Locate Object randomly in the middle of combat when the party isnt even after a macguffin
This is actually the paragraph where I had to say "agree with most of what you said". I would have been more likely to use reckless attack with bless up as I mentioned earlier. Misses were happening frequently enough and the opposition had popped a crit or two in there (one that would have taken me down to zero had I not been raging and I was at 20 HP). Neither spell affects those crits the way we were playing since crits happen on nat 20s regardless of modifiers. Being ensured of more 1d10+3 (8.5) Eldritch Blasts and 2d6+3 (10) sneak attack bow shots would have given me more confidence in whittling down the enemy number than more 1d8 (4.5)/1d12(6.5) attacks from toll the dead. While my attacks were only requiring a 9 to hit the ruffians and an 11 to hit the bugbears, the attacks from the warlock and the rogue were requiring an 11 and a 13 to hit. The Bugbears had to roll a 13 to save and the Ruffians had to roll a 14. Those that had Bane would have had to roll even better, but they were already the more likely attack to hit.
I agree with your position on tanking. The problem is that I was negating all of that by forcing them to attack me (or in the case of the Ruffians, to backtrack out of the room and lose several rounds trying to flank us) by holding the door. I was already keeping my ranged attackers out of danger and presenting the juiciest option to attack. Yes Bane was helping me to avoid some attacks. I understand that and I've literally never said that wasn't the case. Bless can do the same thing by ensuring more hits are coming in and making creatures dead sooner. Lower my chance to hit by between 5-20% is nice. Lowering my chance to be hit to 0% is better, especially when I'm keeping the enemy away from the ranged attackers and not allowing the enemy to force those attacks to be made at disadvantage.
TLDR-For anyone who feels that I was badmouthing Bane and saying it was bad 100% of the time, go back and read my posts again. I never said that it was bad all the time. I said that in the circumstances that I was in, Bless would have been better. I know that I post longer posts anyway and was trying not to recount the entire scenario, especially when the example was about me being lower AC and tanking. This being contrary to the belief that the high AC person needs to be the tank. I'm not sure if it was the usage of the word gripe or if I said that I made a suggestion to try Bless that made people feel like I was peeing in their Cheerios, but gripe was meant to mean that it was trivial. The suggestion happened one time and then I let him do what he wanted. I made the suggestion because he is a newer player. Because he has experience playing healers in WoW, I told him that he didn't have to feel like he had to keep everyone topped off all the time.
There is no vitriol, only you continuing to justify why you feel you are right about a situation that obviously limits another player character's options. The main tenement of this thread. Then you also appear to be an unwitting hypocrite about teamplay choices, according to the choices you make involving your own character. It just boggles the mind, l'm sorry.
So, I will agree with you about Bless. Generally speaking, I like it better as well. In the specific scenario you mention with a Grave cleric, not as much, especially at low level. As I mentioned before, Bane is always prepared as Grave. I wouldn't personally have Bane and Bless prepared when I could have a completely different spell prepared instead of two that are practically identical in the big picture. Even after apologizing, you still go on to say that YOU would have both spells prepared and would cast Bless if you were in your nephews place, to benefit the party over yourself.
I feel you are still too egocentric to consider the possibility that maybe Bane and Spell X are a better combo than Bane and Bless. Consider the choice you madel revolving around your character. You had the option to take primal paths that have abilites that protect of buff you all allies but, you felt that sub-optimal and instead chose Zealot, which is really only about your character, not teamplay. The exception being one 10th level ability. To partiality quote you, "if I were in his shoes", I would do X to benefit the party. As we see above, you clearly didn't.
I am not saying that I would have prepared Bane and Bless. I am saying that I would have used Bless if I had both prepared. I agree that they are close enough in scope that getting something else in that slot is probably better.
As for my choice of paths, the choice was not made lightly and was made with party composition in mind and campaign in mind. Barbearian gets resistances that aren't going to come into play until very late in the campaign (LMoP only goes to 5ish).
Wolf only helps melee attackers close to me. I was leaning wolf until I saw that it would benefit no one unless the rogue wanted to mix it up.
Ancestral Guardians- Ancestral Protectors Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, spectral warriors appear when you enter your rage. While you’re raging, the first creature you hit with an attack on your turn becomes the target of the warriors, which hinder its attacks. Until the start of your next turn, that target has disadvantage on any attack roll that isn’t against you, and when the target hits a creature other than you with an attack, that creature has resistance to the damage dealt by the attack. The effect on the target ends early if your rage ends.
That could have been interesting if the terrain was more open. I've DMed LMoP before and know that it's not frequently open. The majority of play previous to the last session was primarily caverns and basements with lots of choke points. It was redundant.
Storm Herald has damage or aura options that would have been useless or as "egotistical" as Zealot.
Zealot has the ability to do more damage regardless of weapon choice. This means more damage while using a shield is an option. That helps the party my keeping me between them and the enemy. The mechanical kicker was:
Warrior of the Gods At 3rd level, your soul is marked for endless battle. If a spell, such as raise dead, has the sole effect of restoring you to life (but not undeath), the caster doesn’t need material components to cast the spell on you.
If I die for some reason, the party won't have to pay large sums to bring me back. I'm not sure what the first such spell is, but I'm certain that they aren't common in Tier 1. That would mean bringing in an NPC to resurrect me and means cost for time and materials.
Finally, my character is new to the rage issues. He was seeking help on that front and talked to a several people about it. He was leaning Totem to have something to remind him but an encounter early in the campaign reminded him of his human Grandmother's favorite God, Eldath. While Eldath is not commonly a Zealot favorite, her symbol of a waterfall that falls into a pool was calming to him. He know how violent waterfalls can be from his experience as a smuggler (goods and helping people get out of tough situations) and also knows that the pools at the bottom can be very serene. It helped him to come to terms with his rage and he pledged to help use that to help balance nature when he can. His charisma is not high enough for the mechanics to multiclass into paladin.
I get that you probably don't like me much since we have crossed paths on here regularly and often are on opposite sides of discussions. I think some of that might be coloring your perception of what I've actually said. It could also be that I'm longwinded and you've said something about that at least once.
If I truly disliked you, I would put you on ignore. You have some interesting opinions and you put your foot in your mouth sometimes, as do I. I do prefer short but, sweet responses. The long rambling responses you dish out can come off as you trying to convince yourself of something more than to prove a point to anyone else. It's all good.
There is no vitriol, only you continuing to justify why you feel you are right about a situation that obviously limits another player character's options. The main tenement of this thread. Then you also appear to be an unwitting hypocrite about teamplay choices, according to the choices you make involving your own character. It just boggles the mind, l'm sorry.
When did I say I was trying to limit his choices? He had Bless prepared and I suggested that he try it when he hasn't thus far. He went back to Bane and I haven't said a thing about it since outside of this post. Just saying that I wish he would use something that he's using a preparation spot on has no effect on him. If he's even read this thread, he'll see that my preference was for Bless and why, but it won't change his mind, especially when he knows that I don't think it's a big deal either way, which I've stated repeatedly in this thread. It doesn't change what my preference is when both are prepared, whether I would cast one over the other if I had both prepared, or mean that I would prepare both if I were playing his character. It also doesn't mean that I would do any differently than him if I was playing his character exactly somehow, since character personality has as much to do with choices as player personality. He's spent more time with thre character which means that our perception of what the character would do is different.
What boggles my mind is my discussion of a very specific scenario being expanded to all scenarios off of a throw away comment tangentially related to the point that I was making.
Meanwhile, this tangent has taken enough time away from the thread and I apologize for my part in that. If anyone would like to continue to discuss my failings, please PM me.
If I truly disliked you, I would put you on ignore. You have some interesting opinions and you put your foot in your mouth sometimes, as do I. I do prefer short but, sweet responses. The long rambling responses you dish out can come off as you trying to convince yourself of something more than to prove a point to anyone else. It's all good.
Toe jam does have a bit of a funky flavor. My ramblings are less about convincing anyone than about making sure that my point is clear. That comes from a lifetime of being misunderstood coupled with early elementary training to add extra words to just get to a word count that I've spent my college and professional career trying to reverse.
It sounds like you are “a tactician.” Mayhapse this will help:
I only had enough time to watch the first little bit of this (up to the wasn't meant to be part). Sounds interesting and I'll have to circle back when I've got more time, but so far it echoes how I feel about it. My preference was different, but it wasn't meant to be and we're still having fun. Hence my usage of gripe for it being trivial, and I apologize if that is more local flavoring than wide spread usage (there are a few of those around here).
I am sorry if you felt attacked by my previous comments, that wasn't my intention. I shall try to express my position without personalizing it:
I understand that there are situations that warrant specific spells, but often times this becomes more apparent in hindsight. I also believe that a player should be free to take the actions that they feel best represent their character, regardless of whether those actions are optimal or even sensible. A players freedom to act is analogous to a persons right to act in real life -- a person is free to do as they wish, but their right to swing their fist ends at another persons nose. Generally, I do not believe that giving unsolicited advice is appropriate, though this can change based on context or if there is nonverbal communication that would suggest that a player might be open to such advice.
Your explanation of the context does make it clear that Bless would produce more damage per round than Bane, but at the same time you do not recall how much damage was prevented by the use of Bane. Mechanically, Bless does seem to help more in the given scenario, but, in accordance with my position, that does not give you the right to "instruct" how another player plays.
I realize that you are only bringing up a minor quibble, a "gripe", but whether it is minor or major the same principle applies. I think the fairly strong pushback you are experiencing is because of the nature of this thread: this thread is about pushing back against other players dictating how a cleric should be played and you posted "here is a situation that I believe telling a cleric what to do is justified". That may not have been your intention, but it is how it was recieved. You essentially made yourself a target. That does not make it ok to witch hunt, but by the same measure I dont think I would view most of the comments made in response to you as vitriolic either. Certainly opposed, but short of vitriol.
I am sorry if you felt attacked by my previous comments, that wasn't my intention. I shall try to express my position without personalizing it:
I understand that there are situations that warrant specific spells, but often times this becomes more apparent in hindsight. I also believe that a player should be free to take the actions that they feel best represent their character, regardless of whether those actions are optimal or even sensible. A players freedom to act is analogous to a persons right to act in real life -- a person is free to do as they wish, but their right to swing their fist ends at another persons nose. Generally, I do not believe that giving unsolicited advice is appropriate, though this can change based on context or if there is nonverbal communication that would suggest that a player might be open to such advice.
Your explanation of the context does make it clear that Bless would produce more damage per round than Bane, but at the same time you do not recall how much damage was prevented by the use of Bane. Mechanically, Bless does seem to help more in the given scenario, but, in accordance with my position, that does not give you the right to "instruct" how another player plays.
I realize that you are only bringing up a minor quibble, a "gripe", but whether it is minor or major the same principle applies. I think the fairly strong pushback you are experiencing is because of the nature of this thread: this thread is about pushing back against other players dictating how a cleric should be played and you posted "here is a situation that I believe telling a cleric what to do is justified". That may not have been your intention, but it is how it was recieved. You essentially made yourself a target. That does not make it ok to witch hunt, but by the same measure I dont think I would view most of the comments made in response to you as vitriolic either. Certainly opposed, but short of vitriol.
I can agree with you on almost all points here. The exception being that I don't know how much damage was mitigated by bane because of many of the DMs rolls being made privately (within his right). My ability to recall how many of those were attack rolls isn't good enough to assert how much of an effect was done. Probably Toe-may-toe/Toe-mah-toe in difference.
I can see how the statement could be construed as trying to instruct a player that "this is the right way" to play, which is why I was adding more and more context to try to help people see that I wasn't trying to do that at all. That's where I was thinking that people could have been miffed about the suggestion, but more responses kept coming in and were responding as if the gripe itself was negative (it wasn't voiced before this thread at all).
The point I was trying to make is that the attitude of "what can the Cleric do to make me better" rather than "what can the Cleric do to increase his survivability and his damage" is extremely similar to the attitude of the people that want Clerics to be healers and to prioritize healing and cleansing over everything else. People want Clerics to be healers because they want their own character to be more powerful, to do more damage, to be the center of attention, to be the hero. They don't want the Cleric being the hero of the day. It's fine for your PC to have this personality of wanting to be the hero. One of my PCs has this quality of wanting to be the hero. Your adventurers will quite often be motivated by fame as part of their reason for adventuring. Narcissism makes sense in heroes. But it's not a good quality to bring to a team, and your PCs are part of an adventuring party. It's important to separate the narcissism of your PC from your own personal narcissism.
It's somewhat common for players to want another player to use a spell slot to give a buff to them. Thankfully, most players recognize that asking someone else to use their spell slots to buff you takes away from the fun of the other player. Most people recognize how it's important not just for the party to function without interpersonal conflict but for the gaming group to also function without interpersonal conflict.
It's not good when one player focuses on "well I have low AC and enemies have advantage on attacks on me, so Bane doesn't help very much" without recognizing that his allies have about 2/3rds the max HP that he does, take full damage instead of half damage on attacks, have a higher AC, and sometimes even a significantly higher AC, and aren't giving their enemies advantage, and therefore they benefit far more from Bane, and additionally, it takes about 1/3rd the number of hits to knock them down to 0 HP as it does to a Raging Barbarian. Mentally, the Barbarian's strategy is much more reckless, and they're much more okay with being knocked down to 0 HP, because they know it took a lot of attacks to get them down, whereas their teammates don't have the same reckless mindset, and they're not okay with being knocked down to 0 HP, because it takes 1/3rd as many hits to get them down.
Having a mentality that focuses too much on your PC and your personal enjoyment, and not enough on the other PCs and their personal enjoyment is not good for the party. When your focus is more on "how can this be more fun for me" rather than "how can this be more fun for the group" it's not good. It's this attitude which makes some players inclined to think of the Cleric and Bard as healer and support type characters, and to expect them to fill this role. This leads for some players expecting Bards and Clerics to enjoy healing and supporting other characters, rather than enjoying taking on a role of damaging or controlling enemies. Instead of looking at the other people in your party and asking yourself how they can make your character more powerful and make the game more fun for you, ask yourself what they want to do with their characters.
My current Tempest Cleric has literally never cast or even prepared Bless. It's just not a thematic fit for what she does. And my party knows this, and they've never commented on it. She specializes in controlling enemy movement, and she's the best in the party at area of effect damage. I let my group know that those are what she specializes in, and those are what I'm interested in using her for during combat.
I think it depends on how you visualize the downed state. If you consider it to be the same in appearance as being dead, then it is unlikely that most creatures will attack a corpse when there is a threat nearby. Even a hungry animal will likely try to defend its 'kill' before eating, but a frenzied animal might continue to scratch and shake the body. Personally, I consider the downed state to be that you are no longer capable of defending yourself properly -- you have been knocked to the ground in a daze and are wounded, but not exactly dead yet... another strike or two would surely seal your fate though. This is also how I rationalize why you still have your armor class while downed: you can still weakly move or maybe get your shield in place to deflect a blow at the last moment. A corpse in armor might still have armor, but 6s is a long time to be able to hit a motionless target and should be child's play for a trained combatant. This is also how it makes sense (to me) that an ally would know that a healing word would help instead of a revivify. Now, the mechanics clearly say you are unconscious, but it is more realistic to me to imagine things this way.
For the corpse in armor part, that's the reason it gives advantage on prone enemies within 5 feet(like a corpse)
Sure, you get advantage. Still doesnt make sense why there is a chance for missing. An untrained civilian could dispatch an armored but unconscious knight in 6s. When we are talking about the kind of skill mid-level adventurers and monsters have, it makes even less sense that they miss.
A rogue is skilled enough to dodge around a knights longsword swings to precisely stab him through a weaked point in his armor with his rapier, but that same rogue misses the same target when its stationary? Chance is all well and good, but when we are looking at high armor class enemies it gets a bit squiffy. It makes sense when the target is alive because they are actively defending themselves and are a direct threat to your character, but after they stop moving you can take more time to aim, you aren't worried about getting a sword in your own face.
Either way, as i said, it is really just how I picture things and doesnt impact mechanics at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I didn't say that they made the wrong choice, just that it's the only gripe I had with it. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Reckless Attack works great for when I don't care about getting hit. It's getting closer to the point where that'll be more frequent than caring which will mean that it's more of a moot point for me and a bigger deal for our Eldritch Blaster and our sneak attacker. However, Bless still works with Reckless Attack since that 1 to 4 increase can still lead to occasional hits that wouldn't have gone through instead.
Part of the benefit of bless over bane is that it for sure affects 3 allies (more if upcast) and those allies get that benefit on all enemies. Bane, on the other hand, forces a save that the creature can succeed on. If I am using Reckless Attack, those creatures still get advantage on their attacks against me, even if they fail their save. Two chances to get a 14 or a 16 are reasonable, even with a -1 to -4. And has been said before, dead enemies deal zero damage. If I'm able to blockade the creatures in a room, the other party members aren't even getting targeted, especially when they only move into view of the doorway when they attack. It's much more beneficial when we're in an open battlefield.
Bane also only affects 3 targets unless you upcast. Those targets attacks against all party members are reduced, which is nice. For some reason, I thought that the targets could make the save attempt on succeeding turns, which is not the case and improves the situation. Bane does not transfer to other enemies when they die.
As I see it, Bless is the superior choice in an attack dominate group. The defensive aspects may be wasted, but the increase isn't always noticeable on the bane side since it may only affect one party member and there is no guarentee that the save will fail and dead enemies deal no damage. Assuming that both are prepared, I would almost always choose Bless in the situations described.
Lastly, I'll reemphasize that it's only a gripe that I have and I've only suggested Bless once and let him play how he wants to play. I haven't pointed out many of the points that I have here because it's irrelevant. If he has more fun with Bane, then he has more fun with Bane. We haven't had a TPK, possibly because of the times where Bane has reduced attacks against me. Just because I think that it's the suboptimal choice doesn't mean that I think that it's the wrong choice.
I didn't say that Bane was a bad spell, just that I prefer that Bless was cast. I'm simply weighing the benefits of each and feel that Bless was the better spell when both were prepared and he would be using his concentration on one or the other.
It's this type of attitude that results in people thinking that Clerics should be healers - the desire to tell other people how to play their characters and to want them to play in a manner that is optimal for the party, rather than in the manner that thematically fits with their character or is the most fun for them. If Bane is a better thematic fit for his character, let him play it that way.
In general, people avoid trying to tell the fellow members of their party how to play their characters, and with good reason. D&D is better when we don't tell other people how to play their character. There are instances where it is important to tell other people how to play their character - such as "don't pick a fight with the town guards and get the entire party thrown into jail just because your character has the criminal background," but when it comes to Bless vs Bane, it's inappropriate to be judging your teammates' spell selection on what's really a rather minor strategy question.
Specifically, your character is running around with a fairly low AC (and often giving enemies advantage when they attack him), whereas your teammates have a higher AC, and therefore Bane gives them much more of a benefit than it does to you. A Cleric with 18 AC will definitely appreciate an enemy subtracting a D4 from their attack roll because it will cause a significant portion of the hits into misses. A Barbarian with a much lower AC facing enemies that have advantage will get much less of a benefit from Bane making enemies subtract a D4 from their attack roll. You need to understand how your selfishness and focusing on how the spell will affect you is influencing what you want him to do, and that you're more worried about your own character than you are about the strategy for the party in general. If his character has a high AC and is forcing enemies to do saving throws each round, then it makes perfect sense for him to be using Bane. You're weighing the benefits for your character, but you're not accounting for the far more important question which is weighing the benefits for the guy actually casting the spell.
You are free to have an opinion on which is better, but there is a difference when it comes to which should be used. I reiterate that if the party is not facing difficulty hitting the targets, and the enemies are not forcing frequent saving throws, then bless is not particularly important. It is a good spell, and it has both defensive and offensive benefits, but so does Bane.
Your cleric may actually be trying to help your low ac character by reducing the enemy's attack rolls. In addition, any spells cast on targets with bane effectively have their spell dc raised by 1d4, which is amazingly powerful in many cases -- it can mean the difference between one round of hold person/monster and several when used in a party with multiple casters. It also greatly boosts damage spells like fireball, leading to faster clears of encounters.
There are situations where a specific spell may have been the clear choice that would save the day, but bless v bane isnt usually one of those situations as additional hits by your team are roughly analogous to fewer hits by your enemy, and additional successful saves by your team are roughly analogous to fewer successful saves by the enemy. Action economy is the key to combat in the majority of cases. The fewer wasted actions a side has, the more likely that side is to win.
I can understand that if you had bless you might be less likely to use reckless, but at the end of the day a lower AC essentially helps you tank. Having a low AC and not getting hit is essentially the best way to tank -- you are a melee combatant that they have easy access to and have a decent chance of hitting without interference, so you are a very compelling target. This keeps your casters out of danger. Your cleric using bane essentially helps YOU by occasionally making the enemy miss, while also helping themself and the rest of the casters land saving-throw based spells. It might not be your preference, but it is a good strategy. Its not like they are wasting their concentration and spell slots casting Locate Object randomly in the middle of combat when the party isnt even after a macguffin
I'm going to assume you didn't read the post immediately preceding the one that you quoted based on some of the comments that you made.
Otherwise, you would know that I made the suggestion one time and left it alone. I'll assume that you didn't read the post where I mentioned that the player is a new player (my nephew, in fact). I like when people give suggestions on ways to improve because I don't always see the benefits of the option they presented. I'll give newer players suggestions for the same reason and then let them do with it what they want. He tried bless, apparently didn't like it as much. He's having fun and I'm not telling him how to do it otherwise since that one time. He's also having fun with the Toll the Dead spell and I'm glad that Bane is helping him have fun with that.
My complaints about Bane do factor heavily into what my character can do better, but I'm not looking at it the way that I do because they affect me the way that they do. As I said, if I was in his shoes, I would use bless. It wouldn't be optimal for my character but would be better for the party (in my estimation) because more hits means more damage out, means enemies falling faster, and less targets to the primary damage taker. You know, the theme about healing being inefficient at all, dead enemies dealing zero damage.
And you are right, it's a minor strategic decision. I apologize if I've given any indication that I think it's otherwise. I certainly don't feel like it's a big deal and don't understand why anyone would think otherwise. The fact that it's my only gripe means that things are going well. I even stated that the fact that he is using Bane may be the reason why we haven't had an unconscious player yet. It's also possible that it's because I'm taking lots of targets instead of the other players. It could be that the DM is fudging numbers so that no one goes down.
The fact that I used gripe and am having this ramroaded down my throat is telling.
Gripe:
express a complaint or grumble about something, especially something trivial.
The fact of the matter is that I made the character the way that I did. I'm testing out two weapon fighting with it, and the great axe, and sword and board to see how things work, since this is my first actual play time in 5e that's not behind the screen.
I'm seeing what the results of that are and I'm adjusting my playstyle with the character to accommodate. That means more sword and board and less offense including judicious use of Reckless Attack. That would likely be the same with bless as with bane. We just hit level 3. I'll get to see what happens with path benefits. I went zealot while considering bear and wolf totem, as well as storm herald and ancestral guardians. I nearly went with wolf until I realized that the advantage only applies to melee attacks. Bear lost out because we're running LMoP and the additional resistances may not matter and ancestral guardian wasn't holding much appeal since I've taken more targets than anyone else. I'm undecided about 4, but leaning strength, with con or dex a close next highest option, and GWM a distant 3rd place.
I looked over the spell selections that my nephew and the warlock (my niece) made and haven't said a thing about those choices, even to remind my niece that she can change out a spell on level up. I'm not the DM, so I'll leave it up to him to point that out. I'm not just giving out advice all the time because I think they are doing it wrong, but I do give out advice periodically if I think they've overlooked something.
But I'm sure the vast majority of this context makes no difference to many people, just that I did it "wrong". That seems to be a general MO around here (not specifically at you Gabriel).
So, I will agree with you about Bless. Generally speaking, I like it better as well. In the specific scenario you mention with a Grave cleric, not as much, especially at low level. As I mentioned before, Bane is always prepared as Grave. I wouldn't personally have Bane and Bless prepared when I could have a completely different spell prepared instead of two that are practically identical in the big picture. Even after apologizing, you still go on to say that YOU would have both spells prepared and would cast Bless if you were in your nephews place, to benefit the party over yourself.
I feel you are still too egocentric to consider the possibility that maybe Bane and Spell X are a better combo than Bane and Bless. Consider the choice you madel revolving around your character. You had the option to take primal paths that have abilites that protect of buff you all allies but, you felt that sub-optimal and instead chose Zealot, which is really only about your character, not teamplay. The exception being one 10th level ability. To partiality quote you, "if I were in his shoes", I would do X to benefit the party. As we see above, you clearly didn't.
Believe it or not, I agree with you on most of what you said. I'm having a hard time deciding where all of the vitriol is coming from in regards to my post (certainly not just your replies). I'm going to skip by your first paragraph since I think it goes without saying that it's spot on.
Certainly. We hit level 3 at the end of our last session, so no 2nd level spells just like no 3rd level spells. The Cleric's current spell list excepting 2nd level spells that wouldn't have been available at the time and I don't recall any other changes other than him having Healing Word: Guidance, Light which he's cast on a rock and put it into a tube to create a flashlight, Spare the Dying, Toll the Dead which has been his primary attack, Bane, Bless, Cure Wounds which he might have used to replace Healing Word, Detect Magic, False Life, Guiding Bolt, and Shield of Faith. The Warlock has Eldritch Blast her main attack, Infestation which she's used twice, Spare the Dying cause Undying patron, Hex and Ray of Sickness. She went tomelock at third and added Guidance, Mind Sliver (UA) which is a save, and Toll the Dead plus she chose Cause Fear as her new spell at second or third (and still needs to choose another spell otherwise). Since she has only cast Ray of Sickness for leveled spells (aside from Mage Armor from Armor of Shadows) I'm not sure when she picked up Cause Fear. One of the two times that I remember her choosing Infestation was as the very first attack in the town battle against the Redbrands.
As you can see neither of them had a lot of choices for forcing saves and the Warlock used Eldritch Blast plus Agonizing Blast most of the time. The other two characters in the party are me and a rogue focusing on her shortbow from range and only mixing it up in melee during the town battle and a little during Cragmaw hideout. As far as our offense goes, most of the time using Bless would have affected more players and would have done so 100% of the time since it doesn't force a save to hit. Against Goblins (7 hp, AC 13 or 15, +4 to hit and 5(1d6+2) damage with either the shortbow or the scimitar), not a big deal. Against the Redbrands (16 hp, 14 AC but boasting Multiattack with +4 to hit and 5(1d6+2) damage with their shortsword) and the group of three Bugbears (27 hp, AC 16, +4 to hit and 11(2d8+2) damage with a morning star), it became a little harder to kill them and taking hits was a bigger deal considering that the possible average damage of 10 or 11 per round per creature considering that at level 2 our characters had 15 HP (rogue), 17 HP (cleric), 15 HP (Warlock) and my 25 HP. Bane helps to offset some or all of the to hit bonuses to those attacks, but has zero effect against crits, only affected a maximum of 3 creatures (probably a little less than 1 in the three on average saved). Aside from the town battle, I was plugging a door while presenting as little attacking area as possible and preventing them from gaining access to the other party members. The cleric's Toll the Dead and the "increase to my AC" were the only affects that were being felt. I simply felt like getting a chance for the rogue, Warlock, and me to have a better chance to hit on those attacks would have been better, particularly when it would have meant that I would have attacked recklessly earlier being more confident that we'd make more hits and possibly increasing my crits (which are nicer since I'm a Half-Orc). It also doesn’t help that the DM was giving partial cover to the other bugbears and ruffians with the Rogue’s and Warlock’s attacks because of me standing in the door. I’m not 100% sure that should have been a thing, but it was close enough that I haven’t bothered to look it up yet. If the Warlock had switched to Infestation at that time, it would have been better to have Bane up
The net effect may have been 0 and that's why it's only a gripe for me and I only made the suggestion one time with Bless. I've literally never said that Bane was always worse, just that it was worse for circumstances that we were in. I also didn't say that it was something that hampered our party, didn't provide benefit to the party or anything else.
This is spot on and part of the reason that I prefer bless in cases that we were in. It helps to not waste actions and we were having some spotty rolls. Quite a few of those rolls would have hit had Bless been up. The fact that I prefer bless is a moot point because I don't have the data to know how many misses were caused by Bane. As you said, it roughly evens out. The group of bugbears was only three so they could have been all under the effect of Bane or a couple may have made their save. The Ruffians had in their number which means that at least one wouldn't have been affected. Unless the DM tells you which one that is, you could possibly save that one for last. That is not a problem with Bless. The fact that none of the enemies were forcing saves is a point against Bless.
This is actually the paragraph where I had to say "agree with most of what you said". I would have been more likely to use reckless attack with bless up as I mentioned earlier. Misses were happening frequently enough and the opposition had popped a crit or two in there (one that would have taken me down to zero had I not been raging and I was at 20 HP). Neither spell affects those crits the way we were playing since crits happen on nat 20s regardless of modifiers. Being ensured of more 1d10+3 (8.5) Eldritch Blasts and 2d6+3 (10) sneak attack bow shots would have given me more confidence in whittling down the enemy number than more 1d8 (4.5)/1d12(6.5) attacks from toll the dead. While my attacks were only requiring a 9 to hit the ruffians and an 11 to hit the bugbears, the attacks from the warlock and the rogue were requiring an 11 and a 13 to hit. The Bugbears had to roll a 13 to save and the Ruffians had to roll a 14. Those that had Bane would have had to roll even better, but they were already the more likely attack to hit.
I agree with your position on tanking. The problem is that I was negating all of that by forcing them to attack me (or in the case of the Ruffians, to backtrack out of the room and lose several rounds trying to flank us) by holding the door. I was already keeping my ranged attackers out of danger and presenting the juiciest option to attack. Yes Bane was helping me to avoid some attacks. I understand that and I've literally never said that wasn't the case. Bless can do the same thing by ensuring more hits are coming in and making creatures dead sooner. Lower my chance to hit by between 5-20% is nice. Lowering my chance to be hit to 0% is better, especially when I'm keeping the enemy away from the ranged attackers and not allowing the enemy to force those attacks to be made at disadvantage.
TLDR-For anyone who feels that I was badmouthing Bane and saying it was bad 100% of the time, go back and read my posts again. I never said that it was bad all the time. I said that in the circumstances that I was in, Bless would have been better. I know that I post longer posts anyway and was trying not to recount the entire scenario, especially when the example was about me being lower AC and tanking. This being contrary to the belief that the high AC person needs to be the tank. I'm not sure if it was the usage of the word gripe or if I said that I made a suggestion to try Bless that made people feel like I was peeing in their Cheerios, but gripe was meant to mean that it was trivial. The suggestion happened one time and then I let him do what he wanted. I made the suggestion because he is a newer player. Because he has experience playing healers in WoW, I told him that he didn't have to feel like he had to keep everyone topped off all the time.
There is no vitriol, only you continuing to justify why you feel you are right about a situation that obviously limits another player character's options. The main tenement of this thread. Then you also appear to be an unwitting hypocrite about teamplay choices, according to the choices you make involving your own character. It just boggles the mind, l'm sorry.
It sounds like you are “a tactician.” Mayhapse this will help:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am not saying that I would have prepared Bane and Bless. I am saying that I would have used Bless if I had both prepared. I agree that they are close enough in scope that getting something else in that slot is probably better.
As for my choice of paths, the choice was not made lightly and was made with party composition in mind and campaign in mind. Barbearian gets resistances that aren't going to come into play until very late in the campaign (LMoP only goes to 5ish).
Wolf only helps melee attackers close to me. I was leaning wolf until I saw that it would benefit no one unless the rogue wanted to mix it up.
Ancestral Guardians- Ancestral Protectors Starting when you choose this path at 3rd level, spectral warriors appear when you enter your rage. While you’re raging, the first creature you hit with an attack on your turn becomes the target of the warriors, which hinder its attacks. Until the start of your next turn, that target has disadvantage on any attack roll that isn’t against you, and when the target hits a creature other than you with an attack, that creature has resistance to the damage dealt by the attack. The effect on the target ends early if your rage ends.
That could have been interesting if the terrain was more open. I've DMed LMoP before and know that it's not frequently open. The majority of play previous to the last session was primarily caverns and basements with lots of choke points. It was redundant.
Storm Herald has damage or aura options that would have been useless or as "egotistical" as Zealot.
Zealot has the ability to do more damage regardless of weapon choice. This means more damage while using a shield is an option. That helps the party my keeping me between them and the enemy. The mechanical kicker was:
Warrior of the Gods At 3rd level, your soul is marked for endless battle. If a spell, such as raise dead, has the sole effect of restoring you to life (but not undeath), the caster doesn’t need material components to cast the spell on you.
If I die for some reason, the party won't have to pay large sums to bring me back. I'm not sure what the first such spell is, but I'm certain that they aren't common in Tier 1. That would mean bringing in an NPC to resurrect me and means cost for time and materials.
Finally, my character is new to the rage issues. He was seeking help on that front and talked to a several people about it. He was leaning Totem to have something to remind him but an encounter early in the campaign reminded him of his human Grandmother's favorite God, Eldath. While Eldath is not commonly a Zealot favorite, her symbol of a waterfall that falls into a pool was calming to him. He know how violent waterfalls can be from his experience as a smuggler (goods and helping people get out of tough situations) and also knows that the pools at the bottom can be very serene. It helped him to come to terms with his rage and he pledged to help use that to help balance nature when he can. His charisma is not high enough for the mechanics to multiclass into paladin.
I get that you probably don't like me much since we have crossed paths on here regularly and often are on opposite sides of discussions. I think some of that might be coloring your perception of what I've actually said. It could also be that I'm longwinded and you've said something about that at least once.
If I truly disliked you, I would put you on ignore. You have some interesting opinions and you put your foot in your mouth sometimes, as do I. I do prefer short but, sweet responses. The long rambling responses you dish out can come off as you trying to convince yourself of something more than to prove a point to anyone else. It's all good.
When did I say I was trying to limit his choices? He had Bless prepared and I suggested that he try it when he hasn't thus far. He went back to Bane and I haven't said a thing about it since outside of this post. Just saying that I wish he would use something that he's using a preparation spot on has no effect on him. If he's even read this thread, he'll see that my preference was for Bless and why, but it won't change his mind, especially when he knows that I don't think it's a big deal either way, which I've stated repeatedly in this thread. It doesn't change what my preference is when both are prepared, whether I would cast one over the other if I had both prepared, or mean that I would prepare both if I were playing his character. It also doesn't mean that I would do any differently than him if I was playing his character exactly somehow, since character personality has as much to do with choices as player personality. He's spent more time with thre character which means that our perception of what the character would do is different.
What boggles my mind is my discussion of a very specific scenario being expanded to all scenarios off of a throw away comment tangentially related to the point that I was making.
Meanwhile, this tangent has taken enough time away from the thread and I apologize for my part in that. If anyone would like to continue to discuss my failings, please PM me.
Toe jam does have a bit of a funky flavor. My ramblings are less about convincing anyone than about making sure that my point is clear. That comes from a lifetime of being misunderstood coupled with early elementary training to add extra words to just get to a word count that I've spent my college and professional career trying to reverse.
IamSposta, that's probably one of the best videos I've watched posted here. Thanks for sharing. I subbed.
I only had enough time to watch the first little bit of this (up to the wasn't meant to be part). Sounds interesting and I'll have to circle back when I've got more time, but so far it echoes how I feel about it. My preference was different, but it wasn't meant to be and we're still having fun. Hence my usage of gripe for it being trivial, and I apologize if that is more local flavoring than wide spread usage (there are a few of those around here).
I am sorry if you felt attacked by my previous comments, that wasn't my intention. I shall try to express my position without personalizing it:
I understand that there are situations that warrant specific spells, but often times this becomes more apparent in hindsight. I also believe that a player should be free to take the actions that they feel best represent their character, regardless of whether those actions are optimal or even sensible. A players freedom to act is analogous to a persons right to act in real life -- a person is free to do as they wish, but their right to swing their fist ends at another persons nose. Generally, I do not believe that giving unsolicited advice is appropriate, though this can change based on context or if there is nonverbal communication that would suggest that a player might be open to such advice.
Your explanation of the context does make it clear that Bless would produce more damage per round than Bane, but at the same time you do not recall how much damage was prevented by the use of Bane. Mechanically, Bless does seem to help more in the given scenario, but, in accordance with my position, that does not give you the right to "instruct" how another player plays.
I realize that you are only bringing up a minor quibble, a "gripe", but whether it is minor or major the same principle applies. I think the fairly strong pushback you are experiencing is because of the nature of this thread: this thread is about pushing back against other players dictating how a cleric should be played and you posted "here is a situation that I believe telling a cleric what to do is justified". That may not have been your intention, but it is how it was recieved. You essentially made yourself a target. That does not make it ok to witch hunt, but by the same measure I dont think I would view most of the comments made in response to you as vitriolic either. Certainly opposed, but short of vitriol.
I can agree with you on almost all points here. The exception being that I don't know how much damage was mitigated by bane because of many of the DMs rolls being made privately (within his right). My ability to recall how many of those were attack rolls isn't good enough to assert how much of an effect was done. Probably Toe-may-toe/Toe-mah-toe in difference.
I can see how the statement could be construed as trying to instruct a player that "this is the right way" to play, which is why I was adding more and more context to try to help people see that I wasn't trying to do that at all. That's where I was thinking that people could have been miffed about the suggestion, but more responses kept coming in and were responding as if the gripe itself was negative (it wasn't voiced before this thread at all).
The point I was trying to make is that the attitude of "what can the Cleric do to make me better" rather than "what can the Cleric do to increase his survivability and his damage" is extremely similar to the attitude of the people that want Clerics to be healers and to prioritize healing and cleansing over everything else. People want Clerics to be healers because they want their own character to be more powerful, to do more damage, to be the center of attention, to be the hero. They don't want the Cleric being the hero of the day. It's fine for your PC to have this personality of wanting to be the hero. One of my PCs has this quality of wanting to be the hero. Your adventurers will quite often be motivated by fame as part of their reason for adventuring. Narcissism makes sense in heroes. But it's not a good quality to bring to a team, and your PCs are part of an adventuring party. It's important to separate the narcissism of your PC from your own personal narcissism.
It's somewhat common for players to want another player to use a spell slot to give a buff to them. Thankfully, most players recognize that asking someone else to use their spell slots to buff you takes away from the fun of the other player. Most people recognize how it's important not just for the party to function without interpersonal conflict but for the gaming group to also function without interpersonal conflict.
It's not good when one player focuses on "well I have low AC and enemies have advantage on attacks on me, so Bane doesn't help very much" without recognizing that his allies have about 2/3rds the max HP that he does, take full damage instead of half damage on attacks, have a higher AC, and sometimes even a significantly higher AC, and aren't giving their enemies advantage, and therefore they benefit far more from Bane, and additionally, it takes about 1/3rd the number of hits to knock them down to 0 HP as it does to a Raging Barbarian. Mentally, the Barbarian's strategy is much more reckless, and they're much more okay with being knocked down to 0 HP, because they know it took a lot of attacks to get them down, whereas their teammates don't have the same reckless mindset, and they're not okay with being knocked down to 0 HP, because it takes 1/3rd as many hits to get them down.
Having a mentality that focuses too much on your PC and your personal enjoyment, and not enough on the other PCs and their personal enjoyment is not good for the party. When your focus is more on "how can this be more fun for me" rather than "how can this be more fun for the group" it's not good. It's this attitude which makes some players inclined to think of the Cleric and Bard as healer and support type characters, and to expect them to fill this role. This leads for some players expecting Bards and Clerics to enjoy healing and supporting other characters, rather than enjoying taking on a role of damaging or controlling enemies. Instead of looking at the other people in your party and asking yourself how they can make your character more powerful and make the game more fun for you, ask yourself what they want to do with their characters.
My current Tempest Cleric has literally never cast or even prepared Bless. It's just not a thematic fit for what she does. And my party knows this, and they've never commented on it. She specializes in controlling enemy movement, and she's the best in the party at area of effect damage. I let my group know that those are what she specializes in, and those are what I'm interested in using her for during combat.
For the corpse in armor part, that's the reason it gives advantage on prone enemies within 5 feet(like a corpse)
Sure, you get advantage. Still doesnt make sense why there is a chance for missing. An untrained civilian could dispatch an armored but unconscious knight in 6s. When we are talking about the kind of skill mid-level adventurers and monsters have, it makes even less sense that they miss.
A rogue is skilled enough to dodge around a knights longsword swings to precisely stab him through a weaked point in his armor with his rapier, but that same rogue misses the same target when its stationary? Chance is all well and good, but when we are looking at high armor class enemies it gets a bit squiffy. It makes sense when the target is alive because they are actively defending themselves and are a direct threat to your character, but after they stop moving you can take more time to aim, you aren't worried about getting a sword in your own face.
Either way, as i said, it is really just how I picture things and doesnt impact mechanics at all.