I have already stated several times how I see this as comparable to a Divine Smite to "wait for a crit" but no one who plays a Paladin is going to wait all day for only crits to use their smites on. They will throw a smite onto several of their other hits otherwise risk ending the day with spell slots unused. In the same vein, if you only use this ability for crits, then you might have several uses of the feature unused by the end of the day. On the other hand, if you try to use this ability on anything other than a crit, then there is a 5% risk associated with it
Yes, you CAN wait for a crit, but the ability is not designed to be used exclusively for them.
The fact that you have to "weigh the risk" of using a protective ability in the first place is extremely odd. A protective ability that has ANY risk of putting your ally in more danger is a very poor protective ability in my opinion.
I know it’s not just for crits. You can (hopefully) tell on account of the risk assessment numbers I’ve been runningin the other posts. (I know, you’re here talking about how this feature makes you feel and all the statistics in the world won’t change how you feel about this feature.)
Conversely, I like that aspect of the design quite a bit. I honestly wish that more of the features and traits in 5e required more critical thinking about their use like this does. I like having to weigh the odds and decide iif the juice is worth the squeeze. It’s fun. Sometimes it’s 🍾, sometimes it’s 💩, sometimes it’s 🤣, and sometimes it’s 🤬. 🎼🎵But it’s still D&D to me…🎶
Part of is because you are obviously more risk averse than I am, at least about risk to people who don’t actually exist. (That seems to be a common mindset this edition, a lower level of acceptable risk, and an almost pathological aversion to unpredictability in the mechanics. I’ma go out on a limb here and guess you were one of the folks who hated the Psi Die in the UA version of the Soulknife and Psi Knight and we’re happy that went by by. Am I correct? That’s one of the two things I hate most about Tasha’s.They took the most unique mechanic in the game and converted it into the same old boring, predictable pool of uses that everything else has. 🥱
Also, what edition did you start in? I learned how to D&D in the age of “Save or Die,” when PCs dropped so often you didn’t get attacked to them until 5th level, which could take a year. So I suppose it’s another example of that “used to factor,” I’m used to things going pear shaped in D&D, not as an example of Murphy's Law, but instead as the cost of entry. That’s the part about this edition I still haven’t quite gotten used to yet, they expect most or all of the PCs to live to the end of the campaign. This edition is the most “narrative” edition ever, and in many ways the least “game” edition ever.
Finlay, I also agree with AntonSirius, the name of this feature screams “defensive feature” for you, where I keep forgetting the actual name of the feature because I don’t care. I see the mechanics and go, “gotta play the odds.” The mechanics scream “probability manipulation” to me and so that stupid shield name doesn’t fit IMO. I vote change the name, you likely vote to simply reduce the risk. 🤷♂️ Different strokes.
I have already stated several times how I see this as comparable to a Divine Smite to "wait for a crit" but no one who plays a Paladin is going to wait all day for only crits to use their smites on. They will throw a smite onto several of their other hits otherwise risk ending the day with spell slots unused. In the same vein, if you only use this ability for crits, then you might have several uses of the feature unused by the end of the day. On the other hand, if you try to use this ability on anything other than a crit, then there is a 5% risk associated with it
Yes, you CAN wait for a crit, but the ability is not designed to be used exclusively for them.
The fact that you have to "weigh the risk" of using a protective ability in the first place is extremely odd. A protective ability that has ANY risk of putting your ally in more danger is a very poor protective ability in my opinion.
I know it’s not just for crits. You can (hopefully) tell on account of the risk assessment numbers I’ve been runningin the other posts. (I know, you’re here talking about how this feature makes you feel and all the statistics in the world won’t change how you feel about this feature.)
Conversely, I like that aspect of the design quite a bit. I honestly wish that more of the features and traits in 5e required more critical thinking about their use like this does. I like having to weigh the odds and decide iif the juice is worth the squeeze. It’s fun. Sometimes it’s 🍾, sometimes it’s 💩, sometimes it’s 🤣, and sometimes it’s 🤬. 🎼🎵But it’s still D&D to me…🎶
Part of is because you are obviously more risk averse than I am, at least about risk to people who don’t actually exist. (That seems to be a common mindset this edition, a lower level of acceptable risk, and an almost pathological aversion to unpredictability in the mechanics. I’ma go out on a limb here and guess you were one of the folks who hated the Psi Die in the UA version of the Soulknife and Psi Knight and we’re happy that went by by. Am I correct? That’s one of the two things I hate most about Tasha’s.They took the most unique mechanic in the game and converted it into the same old boring, predictable pool of uses that everything else has. 🥱
Also, what edition did you start in? I learned how to D&D in the age of “Save or Die,” when PCs dropped so often you didn’t get attacked to them until 5th level, which could take a year. So I suppose it’s another example of that “used to factor,” I’m used to things going pear shaped in D&D, not as an example of Murphy's Law, but instead as the cost of entry. That’s the part about this edition I still haven’t quite gotten used to yet, they expect most or all of the PCs to live to the end of the campaign. This edition is the most “narrative” edition ever, and in many ways the least “game” edition ever.
Finlay, I also agree with AntonSirius, the name of this feature screams “defensive feature” for you, where I keep forgetting the actual name of the feature because I don’t care. I see the mechanics and go, “gotta play the odds.” The mechanics scream “probability manipulation” to me and so that stupid shield name doesn’t fit IMO. I vote change the name, you likely vote to simply reduce the risk. 🤷♂️ Different strokes.
Wow. That was incredibly dismissive and belittling. Bravo
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I’m sorry it came off that way, that wasn’t my intent. I was simply pointing out:
For you this feature doesn’t sit right, it feels hinky and you don’t like it. (That is the whole point of your thread, is it not?) And I twice attempted to bring actual analytical assessment of the quantifiable risk:reward ratios. The first time you completely dismissed my actual comments and responded with more about your feelings on this subject, the second time you completely ignored my post. However you responded to a different post and continued discussing your emotional reaction to this feature. I concluded that for you this is a discussion about emotion and not statistics. (Can you blame me?) So I shifted the focus of my comments on this subject away from math, and towards emotion following my dance partner’s lead.
To that end I discussed my emotional response by stating I am not experiencing the same reaction as you are. (There were some emojis to convey more in fewer words. And there was a reference to “It’s still Rock ‘n Roll to Me” by Billy Joel.) Since that whole second paragraph was about my emotional response to this feature, it couldn’t have been in any way, shape, or form either “dismissive” or “belittling” to you.
Having compared your emotional reaction to the situation to my own, I decided that if I were a betting man (and I am) that I would place my chips on my being more willing to accept bigger risks that you are. *blinks* Was I wrong? (I mean, it does appear to be true, does it not?) I then went on to state that it is my experience you are likely more representative of the average 5e player than I am. That was followed by a brief glimpse of how that trend appears from my perspective at the other end of the risk aversion spectrum. (Kinda like in the movies when someone is slowed down in time and everyone else appears to be ziiping around like hummingbirds, or conversely how if someone is sped up in time it appears that everyone else is standing still.) After all, when two people who disagree about something have a conversation about that topic, isn’t part of the point to help each other see things from both perspectives? I then took, a guess that you had a similar reaction about a different feature, asked if I guessed correctly, and disclosed my options about that feature and my lamentations over the change.
I asked ya what your first edition of D&D was/is. Then I talked a little about what my own experience was like. Then I mentioned the difficulty I am having adjusting to the paradigm shift. And then stated another of my own opinions comparing this edition to previous ones.
At the end I agreed with someone else, cited their observations and said I thought they were correct and why. A bit more about what I perceive as a simple difference of opinions based on different perspectives of the feature. In conclusion I made an allusion to a common figure of speech stating that total acceptability of different people having different opinions and that it’s absolutely okay and not anything to get upset over or anything.
So again, I didn’t mean for any of that ☝️ to seem “dismissive” or “belittling,” or anything else other that two people having a conversation attempting to see each other’s points of view and agreeing to disagree.
Had I intended to be either dismissive or belittling I might have said something more along the lines of:
”This is a game dependent on shiny effing math rocks. Risk is in its DNA. Complain about that is like whining that it’s possible to lose money shooting craps.”
Now that ☝️ would have been dismissive and belittling. What I actually said was why seemed like a perfectly reasonable conversation from my seat.
I’m sorry it came off that way, that wasn’t my intent. I was simply pointing out:
For you this feature doesn’t sit right, it feels hinky and you don’t like it. (That is the whole point of your thread, is it not?) And I twice attempted to bring actual analytical assessment of the quantifiable risk:reward ratios. The first time you completely dismissed my actual comments and responded with more about your feelings on this subject, the second time you completely ignored my post. However you responded to a different post and continued discussing your emotional reaction to this feature. I concluded that for you this is a discussion about emotion and not statistics. (Can you blame me?) So I shifted the focus of my comments on this subject away from math, and towards emotion following my dance partner’s lead.
To that end I discussed my emotional response by stating I am not experiencing the same reaction as you are. (There were some emojis to convey more in fewer words. And there was a reference to “It’s still Rock ‘n Roll to Me” by Billy Joel.) Since that whole second paragraph was about my emotional response to this feature, it couldn’t have been in any way, shape, or form either “dismissive” or “belittling” to you.
Having compared your emotional reaction to the situation to my own, I decided that if I were a betting man (and I am) that I would place my chips on my being more willing to accept bigger risks that you are. *blinks* Was I wrong? (I mean, it does appear to be true, does it not?) I then went on to state that it is my experience you are likely more representative of the average 5e player than I am. That was followed by a brief glimpse of how that trend appears from my perspective at the other end of the risk aversion spectrum. (Kinda like in the movies when someone is slowed down in time and everyone else appears to be ziiping around like hummingbirds, or conversely how if someone is sped up in time it appears that everyone else is standing still.) After all, when two people who disagree about something have a conversation about that topic, isn’t part of the point to help each other see things from both perspectives? I then took, a guess that you had a similar reaction about a different feature, asked if I guessed correctly, and disclosed my options about that feature and my lamentations over the change.
I asked ya what your first edition of D&D was/is. Then I talked a little about what my own experience was like. Then I mentioned the difficulty I am having adjusting to the paradigm shift. And then stated another of my own opinions comparing this edition to previous ones.
At the end I agreed with someone else, cited their observations and said I thought they were correct and why. A bit more about what I perceive as a simple difference of opinions based on different perspectives of the feature. In conclusion I made an allusion to a common figure of speech stating that total acceptability of different people having different opinions and that it’s absolutely okay and not anything to get upset over or anything.
So again, I didn’t mean for any of that ☝️ to seem “dismissive” or “belittling,” or anything else other that two people having a conversation attempting to see each other’s points of view and agreeing to disagree.
Had I intended to be either dismissive or belittling I might have said something more along the lines of:
”This is a game dependent on shiny effing math rocks. Risk is in its DNA. Complain about that is like whining that it’s possible to lose money shooting craps.”
Now that ☝️ would have been dismissive and belittling. What I actually said was why seemed like a perfectly reasonable conversation from my seat.
In your statistical analysis you pointed out two statistics that are relevant (5% added risk rerolling an attack that wasnt a crit or 0% added risk rerolling a crit). The others where you discussed 75% or 50% came from two very specific scenarios that you came up with to highlight your point. In truth, how effective this ability is will depend one two different things: The "to hit" bonus of the monster and the AC of the target. Both of these things can vary across a broad spectrum of values, which each individually will influence how well a reroll might help, not to mention figuring out what might happen when you mix them together.
While you will always know your allies' ACs, discerning a monster's "to hit" bonus is no easy feat if your DM isnt rolling in the open. The monster scored a 19 to hit. So it could have anywhere from a +17 to hit (DM rolled a 2) or a +0 to hit (DM rolled a 19) or anywhere inbetween. This ability will work very well on a monster that has a +0 to hit, but not on one that has a +17 to hit, and to varying degrees with any monster that has some other value inbetween. You could spend the whole fight observing rolls and cross-referencing with the MM, and you still may not be able to discern what its bonus is if you cant see the DMs rolls (especially so if they are using homebrew monsters).
The only statistics that are true in allcases for when this ability could be used is the 5% and 0% associated with the additional risk that could be present, which have (in one form or another) been discussed at length about the merits of added risk or lack thereof
I ignored your values of 75% and 50% because 1) they were only two specific examples, whereas there is a broad range of possibilities of effectiveness based on what you know about what you are fighting and 2) it was not relevant to the discussion.
My entire point I was making was that no other defensive ability in 5e comes with an additional risks to it, most just either work or they dont. Plenty of offensive have risks, but adding one to a defensive ability is uncommon for this edition. 5% or not, the fact is that there is an added risk to this ability, and that is strange compared to other defensive abilities.
If you feel you'd prefer to see more of these abilities in future content, great! But it sticks out to me as an oddity for this one and counterintuitive for what the feature is meant to represent.
If you want to put together more examples, please feel free, but I am not interested in doing a full statistical breakdown of every situation this could be applied to (even if its narrowed down to a few "smart" uses of the ability). My only concern is that this ability puts the ally at risk of more harm (even if its only 5%) when used on anything other than a crit. That is the only statistic I am concerned with here, and the only way to avoid it is to only use this ability on a crit (which is not the intent of the ability).
Finally, I cannot stress this enough, 5% is not as small of a chance as you make it sound. In a game which is dictated primarily rolling a dice that has a 1/20 chance of showing any value, 5% odds are super common, so much so that two values have distinct rules around them when rolled in combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
"My entire point I was making was that no other defensive ability in 5e comes with an additional risks to it, most just either work or they don't. Plenty of offensive have risks, but adding on to a defensive ability is uncommon for this edition. 5% or not, the fact is that there is an added risk to this ability, and that is strange compared to other defensive abilities."
Aura of the Guardian
Starting at 7th level, you can shield others from harm at the cost of your own health. When a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it. This feature doesn’t transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage, and this damage can’t be reduced in any way.
"My entire point I was making was that no other defensive ability in 5e comes with an additional risks to it, most just either work or they don't. Plenty of offensive have risks, but adding on to a defensive ability is uncommon for this edition. 5% or not, the fact is that there is an added risk to this ability, and that is strange compared to other defensive abilities."
Aura of the Guardian
Starting at 7th level, you can shield others from harm at the cost of your own health. When a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it. This feature doesn’t transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage, and this damage can’t be reduced in any way.
That's, uhh, not the kind of added risk Kaboom was talking about. The person you're shielding still gets protected from all damage by the Aura.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I appreciate all of the responses so far. The main point for "this isnt as bad as you think" that many people have made that I find myself agreeing with is that if you save this feature for crits, it can be helpful (best case scenario canceling a crit altogether, worst case scenario changing nothing). I still have my reservations about this design choice, but would love to see what other thoughts people have.
Honestly, it is strange way to use it, but I would also love to see more scenarios where people think this ability could be useful changing your ally's roll instead of an enemy's (like the vorpal sword example given earlier).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
In your statistical analysis you pointed out two statistics that are relevant (5% added risk rerolling an attack that wasnt a crit or 0% added risk rerolling a crit). The others where you discussed 75% or 50% came from two very specific scenarios that you came up with to highlight your point. In truth, how effective this ability is will depend one two different things: The "to hit" bonus of the monster and the AC of the target. Both of these things can vary across a broad spectrum of values, which each individually will influence how well a reroll might help, not to mention figuring out what might happen when you mix them together.
While you will always know your allies' ACs, discerning a monster's "to hit" bonus is no easy feat if your DM isnt rolling in the open. The monster scored a 19 to hit. So it could have anywhere from a +17 to hit (DM rolled a 2) or a +0 to hit (DM rolled a 19) or anywhere inbetween. This ability will work very well on a monster that has a +0 to hit, but not on one that has a +17 to hit, and to varying degrees with any monster that has some other value inbetween. You could spend the whole fight observing rolls and cross-referencing with the MM, and you still may not be able to discern what its bonus is if you cant see the DMs rolls (especially so if they are using homebrew monsters).
Yes, correct. That’s what ”educated guesses” are for. One counts the hits agains the known quantity of the target AC and makes an educated guess as to the likely attack bonus. That’s basically the same as betting on craps or roulette, you make an educated guess about likely outcomes. No, you don’t “know” know if you’re right until you find out. (That’s what makes it so fun, the risk of being wrong.)
The only statistics that are true in allcases for when this ability could be used is the 5% and 0% associated with the additional risk that could be present, which have (in one form or another) been discussed at length about the merits of added risk or lack thereof
[sic]
My only concern is that this ability puts the ally at risk of more harm (even if its only 5%) when used on anything other than a crit. That is the only statistic I am concerned with here, and the only way to avoid it is to only use this ability on a crit (which is not the intent of the ability).
Finally, I cannot stress this enough, 5% is not as small of a chance as you make it sound. In a game which is dictated primarily rolling a dice that has a 1/20 chance of showing any value, 5% odds are super common, so much so that two values have distinct rules around them when rolled in combat.
Which is what led me to conclude that you as an individual are more averse to taking risks than I am as an individual. That’s not any kind of judgement or anything, just an observation.
My entire point I was making was that no other defensive ability in 5e comes with an additional risks to it, most just either work or they dont. Plenty of offensive have risks, but adding one to a defensive ability is uncommon for this edition. 5% or not, the fact is that there is an added risk to this ability, and that is strange compared to other defensive abilities.
If you feel you'd prefer to see more of these abilities in future content, great! But it sticks out to me as an oddity for this one and counterintuitive for what the feature is meant to represent.
If you want to put together more examples, please feel free, but I am not interested in doing a full statistical breakdown of every situation this could be applied to (even if its narrowed down to a few "smart" uses of the ability). My only concern is that this ability puts the ally at risk of more harm (even if its only 5%) when used on anything other than a crit.
Which is exactly what I said two posts ago and was called names for it.
You see the name of the feature and that first line of fluff and conclude that this is a defensive feature. You then read the mechanics and conclude they are out of whack.
Conversely, I keep forgetting the feature’s name and didn’t even remember there was a sentence of fluff. (I never read that crap, I don’t care about WotC lore for the subclass. I care about the mechanics and will happily write whatever the heck lore and flavor I want for my characters.) So I look at the mechanic, assess its function, and see it squarely as a probability manipulation mechanic.
From my perspective, this is a perfectly acceptable probability manipulation mechanic, the only flaw with it is someone stuck the wrong name and fluff on it. IMO, the thing to “fix” is to recognize that it isn’t a “defensive feature” and change the packaging. The name’s the problem, not the mechanics. Instead it should look more like how AntonSirius had pitched it:
Cast the Runes
7th-level Rune Knight feature
You have learned to invoke your rune magic to potentially alter the outcome of an attack. When another creature you can see within 60 feet of you is hit by an attack roll, you can use your reaction to force the attacker to reroll the d20 and use the new roll.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
If it had looked more like that this whole time, might you not feel a little less put off by the mechanics?
From my perspective, this is a perfectly acceptable probability manipulation mechanic, the only flaw with it is someone stuck the wrong name and fluff on it. IMO, the thing to “fix” is to recognize that it isn’t a “defensive feature” and change the packaging. The name’s the problem, not the mechanics. Instead it should look more like how AntonSirius had pitched it:
Cast the Runes
7th-level Rune Knight feature
You have learned to invoke your rune magic to potentially alter the outcome of an attack. When another creature you can see within 60 feet of you is hit by an attack roll, you can use your reaction to force the attacker to reroll the d20 and use the new roll.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
If it had looked more like that this whole time, might you not feel a little less put off by the mechanics?
Yes, actually. "Runic Shield" implies it is meant to be purely defensive. Also, by stating "potentially change the outcome of the attack" instead of "invoke your rune magic to protect your allies", it lets the player know up front that this ability is going to mix things up rather than flat out help your ally.
When you use an ability called "Runic Shield" with the expectation of "protecting your allies" then something comes across as a bit funny when you find out your "shield" actually just doubled the attacker's damage.
That's what this whole thread has been about. That the stated intent of the ability (and flavor surrounding it) does not fully align with what the ability mechanically does, and that this chance of harmful misfire does not align with other protection-type abilities in 5e.
I dont think it should be seen as odd that a player might have certain expectations about an ability based around what it is called and what it is said to do. There will sometimes be discrepancies between language and mechanics, but if a defensive ability straight up harms the ally, I see that as a design flaw
I also dont think it should be seen as odd to expect an ability to mechanically do the sort of thing it is described as doing thematically, especially when trying to make a game which is streamlined and accessible to new players and not just "chess" minded ones.
Finally, for the record, I did not call you any names. I stated that I found the things you said dismissive and belittling.
As soon as I read their post I had a feeling AntonSirius was right this was an issue related to the perceived disconnect between lore and mechanics. One of my best friends also has a hard time dissociating from the lore and flavor descriptions. She is so annoyed that she can make a more effective character that feels more like an assassin from the Swashbuckler than she can from an Assassin because swashbucklers are ponces and assassins are cool and she feels like a poser. I feel guilty since I was the one who suggested she look at it for her character. She had previously seen the name “Swashbuckler” and didn’t read another word. She saw “Assassin” and has tried it three times and keeps just being… “2- Somewhat Dissatisfied.” Dragonborn too, it really pisses her off. She thinks “Dragonborn Assassin” and images theBaddestAssEver. But a “poncey, ‘half’-elf ‘swash-buckler’” (she even says it like that, with audible air quotes around ’half’ and ‘swash-buckler,’ and I’m hoping the derisive way she emphasizes the ‘swash’ is coming through) “the poncey, ‘half’-elf ‘swash-buckler’ makes a better assassin.” (Maybe if I made a private copy of the ‘swash-buckler’ ‘flitting assassin’ for her…? 🤔)
Mechanically the feature is sound. I didn’t change a single thing about the feature’s function, just the lore. You admit that with that slight tweak, this feature suddenly went from the most poorly designed defensive feature in the game to being another perfectly acceptable feature. Honestly, that’s part of why when I read these things, this is more like what I focus on:
Runeshield… Rune Shield… Runic Shield… Uneray Ieldshay… Cast the Runes
7th-level Rune Knight feature
I wish these were this short.| Either that or a couple sentences, long enough to be its own brief paragraph I could skip. When another creature you can see within 60 feet of you is hit by an attack roll, you can use your reaction to force the attacker to reroll the d20 and use the new roll.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
I can’t get distracted by something someone slapped on because they couldn’t think of anything better if I don’t read it in the first place. You know the 1-3 paragraphs in the beginning of each subclass that give you the lore for the subclasses? I don’t read those either. I honestly personally prefer the UA format, with the minimal narrative.
Because Uneray Ieldshay should be a defensive feature, but nothing mechanical restricts which creature (attacker or attacked) has to be “friendly,” or “hostile.” So you can Cast the Runes to give your party members the same do-over, the same 5% chance to Crit when it wasn’t before that was such a risk and hazard of Runeshield.
(And I will never not be able to think of it as Cast the Runes now.)
And again, I never intended to be dismissive or belittling. What confuses me is I haven’t changed my tune, but now we see eye to eye.
As soon as I read their post I had a feeling AntonSirius was right this was an issue related to the perceived disconnect between lore and mechanics. One of my best friends also has a hard time dissociating from the lore and flavor descriptions. She is so annoyed that she can make a more effective character that feels more like an assassin from the Swashbuckler than she can from an Assassin because swashbucklers are ponces and assassins are cool and she feels like a poser. I feel guilty since I was the one who suggested she look at it for her character. She had previously seen the name “Swashbuckler” and didn’t read another word. She saw “Assassin” and has tried it three times and keeps just being… “2- Somewhat Dissatisfied.” Dragonborn too, it really pisses her off. She thinks “Dragonborn Assassin” and images theBaddestAssEver. But a “poncey, ‘half’-elf ‘swash-buckler’” (she even says it like that, with audible air quotes around ’half’ and ‘swash-buckler,’ and I’m hoping the derisive way she emphasizes the ‘swash’ is coming through) “the poncey, ‘half’-elf ‘swash-buckler’ makes a better assassin.” (Maybe if I made a private copy of the ‘swash-buckler’ ‘flitting assassin’ for her…? 🤔)
Mechanically the feature is sound. I didn’t change a single thing about the feature’s function, just the lore. You admit that with that slight tweak, this feature suddenly went from the most poorly designed defensive feature in the game to being another perfectly acceptable feature. Honestly, that’s part of why when I read these things, this is more like what I focus on:
Runeshield… Rune Shield… Runic Shield… Uneray Ieldshay… Cast the Runes
7th-level Rune Knight feature
I wish these were this short.| Either that or a couple sentences, long enough to be its own brief paragraph I could skip. When another creature you can see within 60 feet of you is hit by an attack roll, you can use your reaction to force the attacker to reroll the d20 and use the new roll.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
I can’t get distracted by something someone slapped on because they couldn’t think of anything better if I don’t read it in the first place. You know the 1-3 paragraphs in the beginning of each subclass that give you the lore for the subclasses? I don’t read those either. I honestly personally prefer the UA format, with the minimal narrative.
Because Uneray Ieldshay should be a defensive feature, but nothing mechanical restricts which creature (attacker or attacked) has to be “friendly,” or “hostile.” So you can Cast the Runes to give your party members the same do-over, the same 5% chance to Crit when it wasn’t before that was such a risk and hazard of Runeshield.
(And I will never not be able to think of it as Cast the Runes now.)
And again, I never intended to be dismissive or belittling. What confuses me is I haven’t changed my tune, but now we see eye to eye.
[removed]
I had other stuff written here, but at the end of the day it felt like I was just repeating points I had already made several times in this thread. My issue with this feature is not purely due to the written lore. To me, the chance of harm it introduces goes against the spirit of what the feature aims to do, protect its allies. Even if you change the wording, thats still clearly what the feature aims to accomplish by changing the roll.
I think you and I will simply have to agree to disagree on whether its an issue or not.
And for the record, I still find your earlier comments dismissive and belittling. Other points that we see "eye to eye" on does not change that, and its insulting that you think it does.
Ehh, the versatility of being able to also change an ally’s roll against an enemy (or even your own attack against an enemy) is more than enough to offset that slight bit of risk, especially since I can choose when to trigger this ability. The potential risks here just seem pretty darn minimal compared to the potential rewards.
And if you feel dismissed, belittled, or insulted, those are your feelings and I won’t say they are invalid. But they are your feelings. I can’t make you feel anything. I apologized and explained that wasn’t my intention. If that isn’t good enough for you, there is nothing more I can do. If you think I attacked you or anything, report me, let the Mods sort it out. What else can I tell ya. Good luck in yer struggles chummer.
Anything that is capable of stacking with disadvantage is a power defensive tool. Sure there is a 5% chance to will reroll a 20 but you have to factor on the chance it is already a 20 in the math.
It's even more useful if your table rolls in the open so you have a good idea of your chance of turning a hit into a miss. This is also the filler reaction when you're not using one of the other more powerful but limited reactions.
I agree this feature can be used in a much smarter manner on the player's end if the DM is rolling in the open.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This is a very useful ability, but it’s not limited to using on an enemies attacks. Any time an ally rolls a 1 on their die you can have them reroll like “Bountiful Luck” would. This ability is definitely more useful on crits, but those can be an enemies natural 20 or an allies natural 1 making it decently versatile. And if you play it smart, you can help with most rolls and only have a small chance of it becoming worse. Like if an ally rolls a 2-4 you can have them reroll and it would be very unlikely it’s a worse roll, same for an enemies 17-19 becoming a better roll.
Any time an ally rolls a 1 on their die you can have them reroll like “Bountiful Luck” would.
It only works on a hit on an attack roll
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Any time an ally rolls a 1 on their die you can have them reroll like “Bountiful Luck” would.
It only works on a hit on an attack roll
I should’ve worded it as “some natural 1’s” rather than any but that was a mistake on my part, and a misreading of the ability, so what I said about enemy crits stays but the bit about having an ally reroll anytime is indeed bunk. However, on a natural 1 a dm may rule that you hit a party member, in those cases you could reroll. It’s up to the dm and player to navigate the wording and how it would work.
Any time an ally rolls a 1 on their die you can have them reroll like “Bountiful Luck” would.
It only works on a hit on an attack roll
Exactly, sometimes on a natural 1 a dm will rule that you hit a party member, in those cases you could reroll. It’s up to the dm and player to navigate the wording and how it would work.
Thats more of a house rule. That being said, that is a fair point if that particular rule is in play
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Any time an ally rolls a 1 on their die you can have them reroll like “Bountiful Luck” would.
It only works on a hit on an attack roll
Exactly, sometimes on a natural 1 a dm will rule that you hit a party member, in those cases you could reroll. It’s up to the dm and player to navigate the wording and how it would work.
Thats more of a house rule. That being said, that is a fair point if that particular rule is in play
I mean, if it's a house rule fine, but rolling a 1 on an attack and accidentally doing damage to a nearby ally still wouldn't be rolling a hit on an attack roll
If you got a hit with your roll, you'd be doing damage to whatever you were aiming for
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know it’s not just for crits. You can (hopefully) tell on account of the risk assessment numbers I’ve been runningin the other posts. (I know, you’re here talking about how this feature makes you feel and all the statistics in the world won’t change how you feel about this feature.)
Conversely, I like that aspect of the design quite a bit. I honestly wish that more of the features and traits in 5e required more critical thinking about their use like this does. I like having to weigh the odds and decide iif the juice is worth the squeeze. It’s fun. Sometimes it’s 🍾, sometimes it’s 💩, sometimes it’s 🤣, and sometimes it’s 🤬. 🎼🎵But it’s still D&D to me…🎶
Part of is because you are obviously more risk averse than I am, at least about risk to people who don’t actually exist. (That seems to be a common mindset this edition, a lower level of acceptable risk, and an almost pathological aversion to unpredictability in the mechanics. I’ma go out on a limb here and guess you were one of the folks who hated the Psi Die in the UA version of the Soulknife and Psi Knight and we’re happy that went by by. Am I correct? That’s one of the two things I hate most about Tasha’s.They took the most unique mechanic in the game and converted it into the same old boring, predictable pool of uses that everything else has. 🥱
Also, what edition did you start in? I learned how to D&D in the age of “Save or Die,” when PCs dropped so often you didn’t get attacked to them until 5th level, which could take a year. So I suppose it’s another example of that “used to factor,” I’m used to things going pear shaped in D&D, not as an example of Murphy's Law, but instead as the cost of entry. That’s the part about this edition I still haven’t quite gotten used to yet, they expect most or all of the PCs to live to the end of the campaign. This edition is the most “narrative” edition ever, and in many ways the least “game” edition ever.
Finlay, I also agree with AntonSirius, the name of this feature screams “defensive feature” for you, where I keep forgetting the actual name of the feature because I don’t care. I see the mechanics and go, “gotta play the odds.” The mechanics scream “probability manipulation” to me and so that stupid shield name doesn’t fit IMO. I vote change the name, you likely vote to simply reduce the risk. 🤷♂️ Different strokes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Wow. That was incredibly dismissive and belittling. Bravo
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I’m sorry it came off that way, that wasn’t my intent. I was simply pointing out:
For you this feature doesn’t sit right, it feels hinky and you don’t like it. (That is the whole point of your thread, is it not?) And I twice attempted to bring actual analytical assessment of the quantifiable risk:reward ratios. The first time you completely dismissed my actual comments and responded with more about your feelings on this subject, the second time you completely ignored my post. However you responded to a different post and continued discussing your emotional reaction to this feature. I concluded that for you this is a discussion about emotion and not statistics. (Can you blame me?) So I shifted the focus of my comments on this subject away from math, and towards emotion following my dance partner’s lead.
To that end I discussed my emotional response by stating I am not experiencing the same reaction as you are. (There were some emojis to convey more in fewer words. And there was a reference to “It’s still Rock ‘n Roll to Me” by Billy Joel.) Since that whole second paragraph was about my emotional response to this feature, it couldn’t have been in any way, shape, or form either “dismissive” or “belittling” to you.
Having compared your emotional reaction to the situation to my own, I decided that if I were a betting man (and I am) that I would place my chips on my being more willing to accept bigger risks that you are. *blinks* Was I wrong? (I mean, it does appear to be true, does it not?) I then went on to state that it is my experience you are likely more representative of the average 5e player than I am. That was followed by a brief glimpse of how that trend appears from my perspective at the other end of the risk aversion spectrum. (Kinda like in the movies when someone is slowed down in time and everyone else appears to be ziiping around like hummingbirds, or conversely how if someone is sped up in time it appears that everyone else is standing still.) After all, when two people who disagree about something have a conversation about that topic, isn’t part of the point to help each other see things from both perspectives? I then took, a guess that you had a similar reaction about a different feature, asked if I guessed correctly, and disclosed my options about that feature and my lamentations over the change.
I asked ya what your first edition of D&D was/is. Then I talked a little about what my own experience was like. Then I mentioned the difficulty I am having adjusting to the paradigm shift. And then stated another of my own opinions comparing this edition to previous ones.
At the end I agreed with someone else, cited their observations and said I thought they were correct and why. A bit more about what I perceive as a simple difference of opinions based on different perspectives of the feature. In conclusion I made an allusion to a common figure of speech stating that total acceptability of different people having different opinions and that it’s absolutely okay and not anything to get upset over or anything.
So again, I didn’t mean for any of that ☝️ to seem “dismissive” or “belittling,” or anything else other that two people having a conversation attempting to see each other’s points of view and agreeing to disagree.
Had I intended to be either dismissive or belittling I might have said something more along the lines of:
”This is a game dependent on shiny effing math rocks. Risk is in its DNA. Complain about that is like whining that it’s possible to lose money shooting craps.”
Now that ☝️ would have been dismissive and belittling. What I actually said was why seemed like a perfectly reasonable conversation from my seat.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In your statistical analysis you pointed out two statistics that are relevant (5% added risk rerolling an attack that wasnt a crit or 0% added risk rerolling a crit). The others where you discussed 75% or 50% came from two very specific scenarios that you came up with to highlight your point. In truth, how effective this ability is will depend one two different things: The "to hit" bonus of the monster and the AC of the target. Both of these things can vary across a broad spectrum of values, which each individually will influence how well a reroll might help, not to mention figuring out what might happen when you mix them together.
While you will always know your allies' ACs, discerning a monster's "to hit" bonus is no easy feat if your DM isnt rolling in the open. The monster scored a 19 to hit. So it could have anywhere from a +17 to hit (DM rolled a 2) or a +0 to hit (DM rolled a 19) or anywhere inbetween. This ability will work very well on a monster that has a +0 to hit, but not on one that has a +17 to hit, and to varying degrees with any monster that has some other value inbetween. You could spend the whole fight observing rolls and cross-referencing with the MM, and you still may not be able to discern what its bonus is if you cant see the DMs rolls (especially so if they are using homebrew monsters).
The only statistics that are true in all cases for when this ability could be used is the 5% and 0% associated with the additional risk that could be present, which have (in one form or another) been discussed at length about the merits of added risk or lack thereof
I ignored your values of 75% and 50% because 1) they were only two specific examples, whereas there is a broad range of possibilities of effectiveness based on what you know about what you are fighting and 2) it was not relevant to the discussion.
My entire point I was making was that no other defensive ability in 5e comes with an additional risks to it, most just either work or they dont. Plenty of offensive have risks, but adding one to a defensive ability is uncommon for this edition. 5% or not, the fact is that there is an added risk to this ability, and that is strange compared to other defensive abilities.
If you feel you'd prefer to see more of these abilities in future content, great! But it sticks out to me as an oddity for this one and counterintuitive for what the feature is meant to represent.
If you want to put together more examples, please feel free, but I am not interested in doing a full statistical breakdown of every situation this could be applied to (even if its narrowed down to a few "smart" uses of the ability). My only concern is that this ability puts the ally at risk of more harm (even if its only 5%) when used on anything other than a crit. That is the only statistic I am concerned with here, and the only way to avoid it is to only use this ability on a crit (which is not the intent of the ability).
Finally, I cannot stress this enough, 5% is not as small of a chance as you make it sound. In a game which is dictated primarily rolling a dice that has a 1/20 chance of showing any value, 5% odds are super common, so much so that two values have distinct rules around them when rolled in combat.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
"My entire point I was making was that no other defensive ability in 5e comes with an additional risks to it, most just either work or they don't. Plenty of offensive have risks, but adding on to a defensive ability is uncommon for this edition. 5% or not, the fact is that there is an added risk to this ability, and that is strange compared to other defensive abilities."
Aura of the Guardian
Starting at 7th level, you can shield others from harm at the cost of your own health. When a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage, you can use your reaction to magically take that damage, instead of that creature taking it. This feature doesn’t transfer any other effects that might accompany the damage, and this damage can’t be reduced in any way.
<Insert clever signature here>
That's, uhh, not the kind of added risk Kaboom was talking about. The person you're shielding still gets protected from all damage by the Aura.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I appreciate all of the responses so far. The main point for "this isnt as bad as you think" that many people have made that I find myself agreeing with is that if you save this feature for crits, it can be helpful (best case scenario canceling a crit altogether, worst case scenario changing nothing). I still have my reservations about this design choice, but would love to see what other thoughts people have.
Honestly, it is strange way to use it, but I would also love to see more scenarios where people think this ability could be useful changing your ally's roll instead of an enemy's (like the vorpal sword example given earlier).
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Yes, correct. That’s what ”educated guesses” are for. One counts the hits agains the known quantity of the target AC and makes an educated guess as to the likely attack bonus. That’s basically the same as betting on craps or roulette, you make an educated guess about likely outcomes. No, you don’t “know” know if you’re right until you find out. (That’s what makes it so fun, the risk of being wrong.)
Which is what led me to conclude that you as an individual are more averse to taking risks than I am as an individual. That’s not any kind of judgement or anything, just an observation.
Which is exactly what I said two posts ago and was called names for it.
You see the name of the feature and that first line of fluff and conclude that this is a defensive feature. You then read the mechanics and conclude they are out of whack.
Conversely, I keep forgetting the feature’s name and didn’t even remember there was a sentence of fluff. (I never read that crap, I don’t care about WotC lore for the subclass. I care about the mechanics and will happily write whatever the heck lore and flavor I want for my characters.) So I look at the mechanic, assess its function, and see it squarely as a probability manipulation mechanic.
From my perspective, this is a perfectly acceptable probability manipulation mechanic, the only flaw with it is someone stuck the wrong name and fluff on it. IMO, the thing to “fix” is to recognize that it isn’t a “defensive feature” and change the packaging. The name’s the problem, not the mechanics. Instead it should look more like how AntonSirius had pitched it:
If it had looked more like that this whole time, might you not feel a little less put off by the mechanics?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, actually. "Runic Shield" implies it is meant to be purely defensive. Also, by stating "potentially change the outcome of the attack" instead of "invoke your rune magic to protect your allies", it lets the player know up front that this ability is going to mix things up rather than flat out help your ally.
When you use an ability called "Runic Shield" with the expectation of "protecting your allies" then something comes across as a bit funny when you find out your "shield" actually just doubled the attacker's damage.
That's what this whole thread has been about. That the stated intent of the ability (and flavor surrounding it) does not fully align with what the ability mechanically does, and that this chance of harmful misfire does not align with other protection-type abilities in 5e.
I dont think it should be seen as odd that a player might have certain expectations about an ability based around what it is called and what it is said to do. There will sometimes be discrepancies between language and mechanics, but if a defensive ability straight up harms the ally, I see that as a design flaw
I also dont think it should be seen as odd to expect an ability to mechanically do the sort of thing it is described as doing thematically, especially when trying to make a game which is streamlined and accessible to new players and not just "chess" minded ones.
Finally, for the record, I did not call you any names. I stated that I found the things you said dismissive and belittling.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
As soon as I read their post I had a feeling AntonSirius was right this was an issue related to the perceived disconnect between lore and mechanics. One of my best friends also has a hard time dissociating from the lore and flavor descriptions. She is so annoyed that she can make a more effective character that feels more like an assassin from the Swashbuckler than she can from an Assassin because swashbucklers are ponces and assassins are cool and she feels like a poser. I feel guilty since I was the one who suggested she look at it for her character. She had previously seen the name “Swashbuckler” and didn’t read another word. She saw “Assassin” and has tried it three times and keeps just being… “2- Somewhat Dissatisfied.” Dragonborn too, it really pisses her off. She thinks “Dragonborn Assassin” and images the Baddest Ass Ever. But a “poncey, ‘half’-elf ‘swash-buckler’” (she even says it like that, with audible air quotes around ’half’ and ‘swash-buckler,’ and I’m hoping the derisive way she emphasizes the ‘swash’ is coming through) “the poncey, ‘half’-elf ‘swash-buckler’ makes a better assassin.” (Maybe if I made a private copy of the ‘swash-buckler’ ‘flitting assassin’ for her…? 🤔)
Mechanically the feature is sound. I didn’t change a single thing about the feature’s function, just the lore. You admit that with that slight tweak, this feature suddenly went from the most poorly designed defensive feature in the game to being another perfectly acceptable feature. Honestly, that’s part of why when I read these things, this is more like what I focus on:
I can’t get distracted by something someone slapped on because they couldn’t think of anything better if I don’t read it in the first place. You know the 1-3 paragraphs in the beginning of each subclass that give you the lore for the subclasses? I don’t read those either. I honestly personally prefer the UA format, with the minimal narrative.
Because Uneray Ieldshay should be a defensive feature, but nothing mechanical restricts which creature (attacker or attacked) has to be “friendly,” or “hostile.” So you can Cast the Runes to give your party members the same do-over, the same 5% chance to Crit when it wasn’t before that was such a risk and hazard of Runeshield.
(And I will never not be able to think of it as Cast the Runes now.)
And again, I never intended to be dismissive or belittling. What confuses me is I haven’t changed my tune, but now we see eye to eye.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
[removed]
I had other stuff written here, but at the end of the day it felt like I was just repeating points I had already made several times in this thread. My issue with this feature is not purely due to the written lore. To me, the chance of harm it introduces goes against the spirit of what the feature aims to do, protect its allies. Even if you change the wording, thats still clearly what the feature aims to accomplish by changing the roll.
I think you and I will simply have to agree to disagree on whether its an issue or not.
And for the record, I still find your earlier comments dismissive and belittling. Other points that we see "eye to eye" on does not change that, and its insulting that you think it does.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Ehh, the versatility of being able to also change an ally’s roll against an enemy (or even your own attack against an enemy) is more than enough to offset that slight bit of risk, especially since I can choose when to trigger this ability. The potential risks here just seem pretty darn minimal compared to the potential rewards.
And if you feel dismissed, belittled, or insulted, those are your feelings and I won’t say they are invalid. But they are your feelings. I can’t make you feel anything. I apologized and explained that wasn’t my intention. If that isn’t good enough for you, there is nothing more I can do. If you think I attacked you or anything, report me, let the Mods sort it out. What else can I tell ya. Good luck in yer struggles chummer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
[never mind. What I originally thought to type here did not add anything important to the thread. So I will just skip it]
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I agree this feature can be used in a much smarter manner on the player's end if the DM is rolling in the open.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This is a very useful ability, but it’s not limited to using on an enemies attacks. Any time an ally rolls a 1 on their die you can have them reroll like “Bountiful Luck” would. This ability is definitely more useful on crits, but those can be an enemies natural 20 or an allies natural 1 making it decently versatile. And if you play it smart, you can help with most rolls and only have a small chance of it becoming worse. Like if an ally rolls a 2-4 you can have them reroll and it would be very unlikely it’s a worse roll, same for an enemies 17-19 becoming a better roll.
It only works on a hit on an attack roll
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I should’ve worded it as “some natural 1’s” rather than any but that was a mistake on my part, and a misreading of the ability, so what I said about enemy crits stays but the bit about having an ally reroll anytime is indeed bunk. However, on a natural 1 a dm may rule that you hit a party member, in those cases you could reroll. It’s up to the dm and player to navigate the wording and how it would work.
Thats more of a house rule. That being said, that is a fair point if that particular rule is in play
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I mean, if it's a house rule fine, but rolling a 1 on an attack and accidentally doing damage to a nearby ally still wouldn't be rolling a hit on an attack roll
If you got a hit with your roll, you'd be doing damage to whatever you were aiming for
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)