We missed a couple sessions due to moving, work, life, etc. but I finally got to play with my EK for the first time.
Everything went smoothly and Gertrude was an instant hit. Of course, now our rogue is a little out of sorts since he doesn't need to scout as much.
Finally getting to play again just makes me more excited. I have a Shortsword of Wounding (1d4 necrotic for every wound caused by the sword at the start of the injured enemy's turn), we're dungeon crawling for some belts of dwarven kind and other items, I've placed an order with the local magic shop for a Shortsword of the Wolf Pack (a homebrew sword that grants advantage on attacks as long as an ally is within 5ft of the enemy), and I've even came up with two homebrew items of my own that I'll EVENTUALLY get access to.
I wouldn't mind getting some opinions on those items if anyone is interested. Look up the Zephyr Pendant (a fighter only item meant to improve Second Wind) and the Spellslinger (a magical light crossbow that can fire the spells of any arcane magic user that attunes to it without spending spell slots). Any feedback here or in the comments for the items themselves would be appreciated.
‘Would like to give feedback on your items but can’t find them. Are they public?
Yes, they are public. I don't know why you can't find them, but I'll link them here. Just copy and paste the url if it doesn't automatically let you go there.
Yes, they are public. I don't know why you can't find them, but I'll link them here. Just copy and paste the url if it doesn't automatically let you go there.
I did see your comments. Thanks for taking the time to reply. That said, when I invited comment, It was more inline of what did you think of my idea and less an invitation to rework my idea. While you had some nice additions, I don't plan on making any real changes to them as these are items I made for myself to have in the future of my campaign and I made them with that in mind. In particular, I don't want the option to have my weapon crumble into dust (though I know that's not uncommon). But again, I do appreciate the comments.
Also, I will try to clarify somethings you mentioned about the Spellslinger (and any future questions about it or the Zephyr Pendant you or others may have).:
1. The Spellslinger can always function as a crossbow, with no spell involvement.
2. It has the ability to fire spells using its charges in place of the wielder's spell slots, essentially giving the wielder free spell slots. it also negates the requirements of spell components except for materials that are consumed, essentially acting as a focus even for those like EKs or ATs who can't use a normal focus.
3. The Spellslinger can fire ANY spell that does not INITIALLY require a saving throw. This means it can fire a spell like Fire Bolt -- which requires a ranged spell attack roll -- and a spell like Magic Missle -- which requires no attack roll -- but cannot fire a spell like Fire Ball -- which requires a dexterity save. But that's not all. A spell like Ice Knife (literally the only spell I know that does this, but I like Ice Knife) CAN be fired even though it requires a constitution save because it initially requires a ranged spell attack roll, the con save being a later part of the spell.
4. For spells that require an attack roll, only a single roll is needed. The extra bolt damage applies ONLY if they choose to roll using dexterity instead of their normal characteristic (intelligence, charisma, wisdom) AND they're proficient with light crossbows (which pretty much every spellcaster is). Since most spellcasters are less dexterous than they are whatever their main characteristic is, they're choosing to take a penalty to hit in exchange for the chance for more damage, but it is still only one attack roll.
5. A crossbow bolt must be expended to fire a spell, even if there is no attack roll being made. This is technically so that people don't spam cantrips (they can always choose to carry a huge number of bolts). This is not the same as saying a bolt must damage the target. I hadn't intended to spell this out (no pun intended), but to clarify for those who might now see this aspect of it, the Spellslinger can also fire non damaging spells such as Shield or Absorb elements. That is why I mentioned spells that did not require an attack roll would automatically hit, as well as spells fired from the weapon are subject to the spell's casting time. This way, you (read I) can fire a shield spell, using a reaction, at the squishy wizard in the party to prevent them from getting hit.
6. While this wasn't mentioned, for clarification's sake, spells fired from the weapon being subject to the range of the weapon means that short range spells like Booming Blade and even touch spells like Shocking Grasp can now hit targets up to 80 feet away (320 feet with disadvantage). Of course, long range spells like Fire Bolt, when cast via the Spellslinger, would now also suffer disadvantage on a roll when the target is more than 80 feet away despite the fact that it normally has a greater range. That said, feats like Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter can apply (per your DM).
I hope that clears things up, vs making things more confused. Feel free to let me know if anything else needs clarification.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I did see your comments. Thanks for taking the time to reply. That said, when I invited comment, It was more inline of what did you think of my idea and less an invitation to rework my idea. While you had some nice additions, I don't plan on making any real changes to them as these are items I made for myself to have in the future of my campaign and I made them with that in mind. In particular, I don't want the option to have my weapon crumble into dust (though I know that's not uncommon). But again, I do appreciate the comments.
Also, I will try to clarify somethings you mentioned about the Spellslinger (and any future questions about it or the Zephyr Pendant you or others may have).:
1. The Spellslinger can always function as a crossbow, with no spell involvement.
2. It has the ability to fire spells using its charges in place of the wielder's spell slots, essentially giving the wielder free spell slots. it also negates the requirements of spell components except for materials that are consumed, essentially acting as a focus even for those like EKs or ATs who can't use a normal focus.
3. The Spellslinger can fire ANY spell that does not INITIALLY require a saving throw. This means it can fire a spell like Fire Bolt -- which requires a ranged spell attack roll -- and a spell like Magic Missle -- which requires no attack roll -- but cannot fire a spell like Fire Ball -- which requires a dexterity save. But that's not all. A spell like Ice Knife (literally the only spell I know that does this, but I like Ice Knife) CAN be fired even though it requires a constitution save because it initially requires a ranged spell attack roll, the con save being a later part of the spell.
4. For spells that require an attack roll, only a single roll is needed. The extra bolt damage applies ONLY if they choose to roll using dexterity instead of their normal characteristic (intelligence, charisma, wisdom) AND they're proficient with light crossbows (which pretty much every spellcaster is). Since most spellcasters are less dexterous than they are whatever their main characteristic is, they're choosing to take a penalty to hit in exchange for the chance for more damage, but it is still only one attack roll.
5. A crossbow bolt must be expended to fire a spell, even if there is no attack roll being made. This is technically so that people don't spam cantrips (they can always choose to carry a huge number of bolts). This is not the same as saying a bolt must damage the target. I hadn't intended to spell this out (no pun intended), but to clarify for those who might now see this aspect of it, the Spellslinger can also fire non damaging spells such as Shield or Absorb elements. That is why I mentioned spells that did not require an attack roll would automatically hit, as well as spells fired from the weapon are subject to the spell's casting time. This way, you (read I) can fire a shield spell, using a reaction, at the squishy wizard in the party to prevent them from getting hit.
6. While this wasn't mentioned, for clarification's sake, spells fired from the weapon being subject to the range of the weapon means that short range spells like Booming Blade and even touch spells like Shocking Grasp can now hit targets up to 80 feet away (320 feet with disadvantage). Of course, long range spells like Fire Bolt, when cast via the Spellslinger, would now also suffer disadvantage on a roll when the target is more than 80 feet away despite the fact that it normally has a greater range. That said, feats like Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter can apply (per your DM).
I hope that clears things up, vs making things more confused. Feel free to let me know if anything else needs clarification.
I didn’t necessarily mean to alter what you had, just clarify and maybe balance
1. That makes sense, I assumed it would.
2. Not sure this needs to be explained, I understood that it used the charges rather then the slot and tried to write it that way.
3. Ice Knife would work the way I wrote it, tried to simplify the language, I understood that it would work with Magic Missile, just not sure why you would ever use it for Magic Missile. Your reducing the range of a spell that auto hits, I guess your saving the spell slot, but otherwise it would be a weaker choice.
4. If you want it to be a single attack roll, go with that, but I would suggest that you a) require proficiency with light crosssbow and b) you simply state that this crossbow uses your spell profiency when firing a spell and Dex when used as a normal crossbow.
5. I would use the language that you infuse the spell into the bolt if you want to convey that a bolt must be used, I don’t understand what you mean by “spamming cantrips”, those use nothing anyway so I player can simply fire them off everyround, they are intended to be a base damage if you are out of slots or are fighting a junk mob rather then your big fights. As for Shield and Absorb Elements those are spells intended to only be used ON the caster, being able to target allies with them changes them. If you want to do it in your campaign go for it, but I wouldn’t do it for a number of reasons, foremost being that you are taking your reaction on someone else's turn to fire a weapon, that you are then channeling a spell into, and on top of that it is a spell that normally you can only cast on yourself. That breaks a lot of rules.
6. I get the value/hinderance of changing a spells range, but Booming Blade shouldn’t work with this weapon, Shocking Grasp, eh, doesn’t really break anything to allow it.
1. I already believe the weapon to be balanced. It's not meant to be a weapon you get early in your adventure, so if it seems powerful, that's because it is. It's meant to make using a crossbow more viable to an EK and to overcome what I feel is a low amount of spell slots (understandably considering when they start learning spells, but still low).
2. You wrote "So if I am reading this correctly, you are allowing someone to fire this crossbow as part of casting a spell or as an attack? This then deals the spell damage and the bolt damage, having rolled a single attack die for both effects?" You also asked me to confirm based on your understanding. You had question marks and asked for confirmation. Also, since what you suggested was different than what I had, I couldn't assume what was a misunderstanding vs what was a suggested improvement. So I clarified for both you and anyone else who might look at it here later.
3. I never said Ice Knife wouldn't work the way you had it. I was just giving examples of spells that my reasoning and word choice applied to and, in the case of Ice Knife, it's the only spell I know off the top of my head that works like that. As for Magic Missile, I don't feel it weakens the spell to lose some distance to save some spell slots, especially since Magic Missile can be cast at higher levels. Arguably, an EK could cast it at level 9 despite normally only having access to level 4 spells. But again, Magic Missile was just an example spell.
4. All normal arcane spellcasters are already proficient with Light Crossbows. But that's not my concern for firing spells, which is why I didn't mention it until I brought up adding crossbow damage. Also, I thought it was understood that you'd fire the spell with your spellcasting proficiency which is why I didn't mention dex until bringing up crossbow damage.
5 I think it's pretty clear that a bolt must be used to fire a spell. That you prefer different language doesn't make it unclear. As for spamming cantrips, I gave the weapon the ability to add crossbow damage to spells, including cantrips. So theoretically, all damaging cantrips are stronger than before, thereby eliminating any reason to cast cantrips normally. Having the chance to run out of bolts, and thus preventing using the weapon to fire cantrips indefinitely in place of normal casting, is for balance. As for what cantrips are "intended for" I'm a firm believer in the idea that you can play dnd anyway you want so that there is no "intended for". An EK especially would probably use cantrips more often than most other arcane users.
As for you saying using the weapon to fire Shield and Absorb Elements at others breaks a lot of rules, you're mistaken. There are 5 spells on the wizard spell list that use reactions. Only Shield and Absorb Elements are used on just the caster. The other three are all used on others. So there's no rule against using your reaction to cast a spell on someone else and there's no rule on reaction spells only being cast on the caster *Looking over this, i feel this last sentence kinda repeats itself, but I'm keeping it*. So the only thing the weapon is doing in regards to Shield and Absorb Elements is changing the range from Self to something else like Touch or Sight or 80feet, all of which are ranges spells already use. That's all this weapon does when you come down to it: act as a focus, change the range of spells, give free spell slots, and add crossbow damage. It's not that radical of an idea. I think you are just used to thinking inside the box.
6. Booming Blade shouldn't work with this weapon why? Because it's a range weapon instead of a melee one? That's the only difference. Booming Blade works with this weapon as well as any other spell since the only thing being changed is the range ,which is exactly what this weapon is designed for. You can't even complain that the material component isn't right because the Spellslinger acts as a focus, thereby eliminating the need for material components. Now if you want to argue that EKs shouldn't be able to use a focus, that's a valid point. I designed the weapon specifically to overcome that shortcoming, but I wouldn't say you were wrong to argue it. But the idea that Booming Blade shouldn't be used with this weapon because it's a melee cantrip (which is just my assumption of what your reasoning is so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) just seems like another example of not thinking outside the box. And isn't that what homebrew is for, to think outside the established ideas of DnD?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
3. Knowing that you are specifically thinking about an EK makes MM more valid as they are limited on spell slots, I was thinking more about full casters.
4. I think I understand now, it always fires a bolt, if you use your casting stat if doesn’t apply the bolt damage, if you use dex it does. Got it.
5. I would argue that requiring a bolt does nothing to stop spamming cantrips, for 5gp you can buy 100 bolts before you leave town. More then enough for a long time. I agree that you should play dnd anyway you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that cantrips are designed to be a casters defacto attack,
Yes, there are 5 spells that are reaction, the others though have a specific trigger that makes sense, and yes if you reworked absorb elements and shield to be applied to another character as a spell at the cost of a spell slot, ok, but to say that you can ten times a day increase anyone’s AC by 5 is really powerful, and no I am not ised to only thinking inside the box
6. booming blade shouldn’t work because you have to rewrite it for it to make sense, which is fine, if you want to rewrite go ahead, but to say it should work defies logic. You shoot a crossbow at someone 80 ft away while casting a spell that requires as part of the spell you to make a melee attack?
I am enjoying this discussion and look forward to your next reply.
1. We're on an EK forum and I said I made the weapon for my character which is an EK. So yes, an EK should be in mind as AN user if not THE user. That said, Magic Missile was still just an example spell.
2. You're mostly correct. It does only add bolt damage if you use dex. This is so you don't hurt your friends if you shoot a spell at them and so that casters who have a low dex can still use the weapon well. But I didn't say it always fires a bolt to cast a spell. I said it always uses a bolt to cast a spell. If you want to think of it as firing a bolt, that's fine, but I chose my words so that people who think of bolts being used up like material components can play that way. It also allows an opening for people to avoid arguments about the Loading feature crossbows have.
3. I too would argue that using a bolt doesn't do much to keep people from spamming cantrips. That's why I said "technically" when I first brought up that purpose. That said, bolts being cheap doesn't change the fact that it's hard to carry a lot of bolts. Some DMs are sticklers for encumbrance and/or the reality of what a character can carry, and everyone doesn't have a bag of holding.
4. Any changing of a spell is reworking it. The biggest thing the Spellslinger does to spells is change the range. For casters in general, it gives free slots. For battle, it has the opportunity to add bolt dam age, but the bolt damage itself isn't magical or part of the spell. For EKs, it acts as a pseudo focus. But what it does to spells specifically is change the range.
Think about what happens with Shield normally. You get attacked by an enemy (so it's not your turn). You actually get hit, and before you take actual damage, you cast the spell thereby increasing your AC. Your reaction is used to do this. Now think about using the Spellslinger to cast it. Your ally gets attacked by an enemy (so it's not your turn). They actually get hit, and before they take actual damage, you shoot the spell thereby increasing their AC. Your reaction is used to do this.
Only two things were changed in that scenario: who is being shielded and the range of the spell. And changing the range of the spell is the only thing that even allows the possibility of someone else being shielded, so again, the biggest thing done is changing the spell's range.
Think about what happens with Booming Blade normally. You try to attack someone with a melee weapon. If they get hit, they take the weapon's damage. If they then move from that spot before the end of their next turn, they take thunder damage. If they don't move, they take no damage (at higher levels they take thunder damage even if they don't move and additional damage if they do). Now think about what happens with Booming Blade using the Spellslinger. You try to attack someone with this magic (ranged) weapon. If they get hit, the spell activates (if they used dex to add bolt damage then they take weapon damage). If they then move from that spot etc., they take thunder damage. If they don't move, they take no damage (at higher levels etc.).
Only three things changed this time: the type of weapon used, the range of the spell, and the chance for no weapon damage on the initial hit. Not having initial weapon damage is a bit different, but it's entirely possible that the weapon damage when the spell is cast normally would be a 1; compared to a 0 it's not a big difference. Then when you take into account that they can choose to add bolt damage, then weapon damage is added with the initial hit thereby eliminating even that small change. As for the change in weapon type and spell range,changing the weapon type is the only thing that even allows the possibility of the range being changed for this particular spell (a reversal of the reasoning in the last paragraph), so again, the biggest change is the spell's range. And since you're already able to deal with Shocking Grasp's range being changed, you should be able to adjust to the idea of Booming Blade's and Shield's range being changed.
Yes, being able to raise someone else's AC ten times a day is powerful. But so is simply having an extra 1-10 spell slots. So is allowing short range spells to be cast at long range. So is giving an EK a pseudo focus. So is adding an extra 1d8 to every attack. The weapon is meant to be powerful, which is why it's for use later in the campaign. But even then, it's not SUPER powerful. It doesn't fire saving throw spells, which is most spells, and the highest official arcane spell with an attack roll is 7th level when cast normally, not even a 9th level spell. Hopefully, when viewed from this perspective, you can more easily accept and/or understand what the weapon does and doesn't do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
“Think about what happens with Shield normally. You get attacked by an enemy (so it's not your turn). You actually get hit, and before you take actual damage, you cast the spell thereby increasing your AC. Your reaction is used to do this. Now think about using the Spellslinger to cast it. Your ally gets attacked by an enemy (so it's not your turn). They actually get hit, and before they take actual damage, you shoot the spell thereby increasing their AC. Your reaction is used to do this.”
I have always thought of shield as, you see an attack about to happen and you reflexively cast shield, which may raise your ac enough to absorb the attack, negating the damage. Yeah, you could say that you see your friend about to be hit, so you react and fire off the spell.
So the only thing I am still unclear of, is this a weapon attack or a spell cast?
The use counting as an attack action or a spell significantly affects how it can be used.
The casting time for Shield is a reaction that occurs when you're hit by an attack or targeted by Magic Missile. So it's not throwing up an attack because you see an attack coming and think it MIGHT land, it's actually feeling the attack meet or exceed your AC (except for Magic Missile).
If you're asking me if you're making a weapon attack when firing Shield at a friend, it is not. You are casting the spell using the weapon as a focus. If it was a weapon attack, then an EK could cast multiple spells with the weapon due to them having multiple attacks with one attack action. That would be too strong.
So you can attack with the crossbow once as a weapon attack and then use a bonus action if you have one.
You can attack with the crossbow as a weapon multiple times, if you have the Crossbow Expert feat and your character has the multi attack action, and then use a bonus action if you have one.
But fired spells are subject to the casting time of the spell. So just like with any other spell, other than using Action Surge or Meta Magic, you can cast up to 2 spells per turn: a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action and a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. Using the Spellslinger won't change that, regardless of whether the spell does damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
That’s a clever way of getting around a classes base mechanical limitation. I guess if your DM allows such a thing then have at it, but no way I’d allow an item that allows an EK more spell slots at my table nor would I want one on my EK either. He’s a mage killing sword swinging bad ass, a fighter that can cast. I save the caster who can do melee for my Sorcadin. I trust WoTC with their balancing play tests, and after seeing what a tier 3 EK is capable of without giving him more spell slots, that’s completely unbalancing.
That’s a clever way of getting around a classes base mechanical limitation. I guess if your DM allows such a thing then have at it, but no way I’d allow an item that allows an EK more spell slots at my table nor would I want one on my EK either. He’s a mage killing sword swinging bad ass, a fighter that can cast. I save the caster who can do melee for my Sorcadin. I trust WoTC with their balancing play tests, and after seeing what a tier 3 EK is capable of without giving him more spell slots, that’s completely unbalancing.
I agree, but was happy to engage in discussion over the item. If it works for him and his group, go for it, I love homebrew.
Homebrew is fine as long as there is balance. I see a lot of homebrewing rules and items for players that have never played the class so they don’t even know how it plays under normal circumstances. Every class has its peaks and valleys, strengths and weaknesses. I definitely recommend playing in a group rules as written well into tier 3 before altering rules. A small power upgrade with an item could completely overpower and overshadow other characters which will lead to one of two outcomes: taking the item and angering the character that had it, or giving other characters boosts and turning fights into cakewalks. Just be mindful of what ya ask for with homebrew.
That’s a clever way of getting around a classes base mechanical limitation. I guess if your DM allows such a thing then have at it, but no way I’d allow an item that allows an EK more spell slots at my table nor would I want one on my EK either. He’s a mage killing sword swinging bad ass, a fighter that can cast. I save the caster who can do melee for my Sorcadin. I trust WoTC with their balancing play tests, and after seeing what a tier 3 EK is capable of without giving him more spell slots, that’s completely unbalancing.
Again, I don't believe in the idea of there's only one way to play a character and that's the impressions you give as soon as you say "____ is a /supposed to do ____". Giving an EK more spell slots doesn't change the fact that he never gets access to 5th level spells and higher. so the idea that he suddenly becomes a stronger caster that unbalances the game with the Spellslinger is, at best, an exaggeration and, at worst, an unreasonable fear. I've said multiple times that it's a late game item.
As for trusting WoTC, the idea of homebrew doesn't equal not trusting them. But that doesn't mean they can't also make mistakes, either real or simply perceived, nor that there isn't room for improvement; I don't know what you mean by a "tier 3 EK", but the Erratta (sp) and UA exists for a reason. Maybe at least play a session or two with the weapon before assuming it has negative effects on the game. Having a differing opinion is fine, but speaking as if your opinion is a fact, especially without trying it for yourself just seems off to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
Homebrew is fine as long as there is balance. I see a lot of homebrewing rules and items for players that have never played the class so they don’t even know how it plays under normal circumstances. Every class has its peaks and valleys, strengths and weaknesses. I definitely recommend playing in a group rules as written well into tier 3 before altering rules. A small power upgrade with an item could completely overpower and overshadow other characters which will lead to one of two outcomes: taking the item and angering the character that had it, or giving other characters boosts and turning fights into cakewalks. Just be mindful of what ya ask for with homebrew.
I tend to agree, I offered some suggestions to the OP for balance and that isn't what they were looking for, so I adjusted my discussion. I Think even later levels giving an EK free 9th level spells is a bad idea but at the end of the day it isn't my game. I am curious to see what happens when they use it and hope they report back.
That’s a clever way of getting around a classes base mechanical limitation. I guess if your DM allows such a thing then have at it, but no way I’d allow an item that allows an EK more spell slots at my table nor would I want one on my EK either. He’s a mage killing sword swinging bad ass, a fighter that can cast. I save the caster who can do melee for my Sorcadin. I trust WoTC with their balancing play tests, and after seeing what a tier 3 EK is capable of without giving him more spell slots, that’s completely unbalancing.
Again, I don't believe in the idea of there's only one way to play a character and that's the impressions you give as soon as you say "____ is a /supposed to do ____". Giving an EK more spell slots doesn't change the fact that he never gets access to 5th level spells and higher. so the idea that he suddenly becomes a stronger caster that unbalances the game with the Spellslinger is, at best, an exaggeration and, at worst, an unreasonable fear. I've said multiple times that it's a late game item.
As for trusting WoTC, the idea of homebrew doesn't equal not trusting them. But that doesn't mean they can't also make mistakes, either real or simply perceived, nor that there isn't room for improvement; I don't know what you mean by a "tier 3 EK", but the Erratta (sp) and UA exists for a reason. Maybe at least play a session or two with the weapon before assuming it has negative effects on the game. Having a differing opinion is fine, but speaking as if your opinion is a fact, especially without trying it for yourself just seems off to me.
How is it an exaggeration to say that giving a player who normally can cast a spell at 4th level the ability to, every day, for free, cast any of their spells at 9th level makes them powerful. You can say it is a late game item, but you can't argue that it isn't a powerful item and anything that is really powerful has the potential to unbalance the game.
Will it break the game, probably not, will it wreck fights, absolutely if the DM doesn't account for it, but as long as the DM balances the encounters everything will be fine.
As for WoTC, yes - they add UA and errata, but there is no errata or UA that gives an EK more spell slots or a the ability to cast at higher levels. I say go for it, just make sure you come back here and tell us all how it went. I for one am curious to know how it functions.
It's an exaggeration to say that it WILL unbalance the game despite not having 5th level and higher spells, not an exaggeration to say it will make characters more powerful. Also, assuming that their DM even allows them to cast their spells up to 9th level (remember I only said that was arguably possible), unless they take a break for a day or three, they're only guaranteed to be able to cast at 9th level one time since they'd then have to roll a d10 at dawn to get those charges back. Even if they didn't use that last charge, unless they roll an 8, no 9th level spell that day. That's not going to happen every day.
And, let me remind you that not all spells can be cast at higher levels. While it is possible to have all 13 spells an EK knows be able to be cast at higher levels with the Spellslinger, I'd argue that it wouldn't be possible without planning it in advance. I looked into it and, since the weapon doesn't cast spells that initially require a saving throw, there are only 5 Evocation spells and 4 Abjuration spells (I don't count Glyph of Warding and Magic Circle, but I could see someone arguing to include them) that can be cast at higher levels. That's 9. And then when you add in the 4 spells you learn at levels 3, 8, 14, and 20 that can come from any school, you get 13. So it is doable, but, again, I don't think it's something that would happen organically since people are bound to have at least a couple spells that require saving throws.
Anyway, Pigeon didn't mention casting spells at higher levels as the unbalancing agent, but simply having more spell slots. 10 extra at level 1, 5 extra at level 2, 3 extra at level 3, and 2 extra at level 4 (and 5 if casting at higher levels, as well as 1 extra for levels 6-9). EKs and ATs have 11 spell slots so, at most, the weapon adds 10 low level spell slots for a total of 21 (all Full Casters except Warlock have 22) and 2 medium level spell slots for a total of 13 (Paladins and Rangers have 15). Also, Pigeon didn't mention unbalancing the game if Full Casters used it (they might feel that way, but didn't say it). So is it ok for a Wizard to have 23-32 spell slots or a Ranger to have 16-25? Let's leave that aside, though. Bottom line, using the Spellslinger will never make an EK as powerful a caster as a Full Caster either in number of spell slots nor in regards to a spell's strength since a Full Caster will always recharge their spells after a long rest while the weapon will not always do so. That's why I don't feel that the weapon unbalancing the game is a foregone conclusion.
I never said the UA or the Errata did what the Spellslinger does. I only mentioned it as evidence that Wizards doesn't consider itself perfect so the idea that Wizards said it and thus there's no room for change or improvement is flawed; they themselves think there's room for change and improvement by the fact that they put those out. Of course, that doesn't equal the EK needs improvement, but it also doesn't mean that it doesn't. All I'm saying is "I trust Wizards" is a poor justification for going against any homebrew idea since they themselves acknowledge they're not perfect.
I would love to tell you how the weapon handles, but I'm afraid it will be a long time. I'm only level 3, it's a late game item, we only play once a week, and my DM just told us that we're not playing this week. So unless I'm able to join a game that lets the characters start at higher levels, we'll have to hope someone uses it and leaves a comment about how good or bad it was. Of course, you or anyone else reading this are welcome to try it yourselves and tell me how it went.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I'm of the camp that likes to play as designed as much as possible. I like the peaks and valleys of classes and how they have strengths and weaknesses. My Abjuration wizard at tier 1 was borderline useless, was decent at tier 2, became super fun at tier 3, and finally at tier 4 was just insane. If I was to get an item that beefed up health or AC early, I wouldn’t have enjoyed it’s flavor as much. Most of my homebrew stuff is flavor items for RP and doesn’t change things mechanically. Play a class however you like, but actually play the class and not an altered version, at least at first. If you haven’t played to tier 3 or 4 how can you say that altering an EK wouldn’t unbalance it when I’ve played with one to 20 and have one myself at tier 3 that I can assure you would be with that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
‘Would like to give feedback on your items but can’t find them. Are they public?
Yes, they are public. I don't know why you can't find them, but I'll link them here. Just copy and paste the url if it doesn't automatically let you go there.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/251440-the-zephyr-pendant
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/251496-the-spellslinger
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I hope to jump into the game with both feet.
Thanks for the links, not sure why my search didn't find them. I replied to each on their respective pages.
I did see your comments. Thanks for taking the time to reply. That said, when I invited comment, It was more inline of what did you think of my idea and less an invitation to rework my idea. While you had some nice additions, I don't plan on making any real changes to them as these are items I made for myself to have in the future of my campaign and I made them with that in mind. In particular, I don't want the option to have my weapon crumble into dust (though I know that's not uncommon). But again, I do appreciate the comments.
Also, I will try to clarify somethings you mentioned about the Spellslinger (and any future questions about it or the Zephyr Pendant you or others may have).:
1. The Spellslinger can always function as a crossbow, with no spell involvement.
2. It has the ability to fire spells using its charges in place of the wielder's spell slots, essentially giving the wielder free spell slots. it also negates the requirements of spell components except for materials that are consumed, essentially acting as a focus even for those like EKs or ATs who can't use a normal focus.
3. The Spellslinger can fire ANY spell that does not INITIALLY require a saving throw. This means it can fire a spell like Fire Bolt -- which requires a ranged spell attack roll -- and a spell like Magic Missle -- which requires no attack roll -- but cannot fire a spell like Fire Ball -- which requires a dexterity save. But that's not all. A spell like Ice Knife (literally the only spell I know that does this, but I like Ice Knife) CAN be fired even though it requires a constitution save because it initially requires a ranged spell attack roll, the con save being a later part of the spell.
4. For spells that require an attack roll, only a single roll is needed. The extra bolt damage applies ONLY if they choose to roll using dexterity instead of their normal characteristic (intelligence, charisma, wisdom) AND they're proficient with light crossbows (which pretty much every spellcaster is). Since most spellcasters are less dexterous than they are whatever their main characteristic is, they're choosing to take a penalty to hit in exchange for the chance for more damage, but it is still only one attack roll.
5. A crossbow bolt must be expended to fire a spell, even if there is no attack roll being made. This is technically so that people don't spam cantrips (they can always choose to carry a huge number of bolts). This is not the same as saying a bolt must damage the target. I hadn't intended to spell this out (no pun intended), but to clarify for those who might now see this aspect of it, the Spellslinger can also fire non damaging spells such as Shield or Absorb elements. That is why I mentioned spells that did not require an attack roll would automatically hit, as well as spells fired from the weapon are subject to the spell's casting time. This way, you (read I) can fire a shield spell, using a reaction, at the squishy wizard in the party to prevent them from getting hit.
6. While this wasn't mentioned, for clarification's sake, spells fired from the weapon being subject to the range of the weapon means that short range spells like Booming Blade and even touch spells like Shocking Grasp can now hit targets up to 80 feet away (320 feet with disadvantage). Of course, long range spells like Fire Bolt, when cast via the Spellslinger, would now also suffer disadvantage on a roll when the target is more than 80 feet away despite the fact that it normally has a greater range. That said, feats like Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter can apply (per your DM).
I hope that clears things up, vs making things more confused. Feel free to let me know if anything else needs clarification.
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I hope to jump into the game with both feet.
I didn’t necessarily mean to alter what you had, just clarify and maybe balance
1. That makes sense, I assumed it would.
2. Not sure this needs to be explained, I understood that it used the charges rather then the slot and tried to write it that way.
3. Ice Knife would work the way I wrote it, tried to simplify the language, I understood that it would work with Magic Missile, just not sure why you would ever use it for Magic Missile. Your reducing the range of a spell that auto hits, I guess your saving the spell slot, but otherwise it would be a weaker choice.
4. If you want it to be a single attack roll, go with that, but I would suggest that you a) require proficiency with light crosssbow and b) you simply state that this crossbow uses your spell profiency when firing a spell and Dex when used as a normal crossbow.
5. I would use the language that you infuse the spell into the bolt if you want to convey that a bolt must be used, I don’t understand what you mean by “spamming cantrips”, those use nothing anyway so I player can simply fire them off everyround, they are intended to be a base damage if you are out of slots or are fighting a junk mob rather then your big fights. As for Shield and Absorb Elements those are spells intended to only be used ON the caster, being able to target allies with them changes them. If you want to do it in your campaign go for it, but I wouldn’t do it for a number of reasons, foremost being that you are taking your reaction on someone else's turn to fire a weapon, that you are then channeling a spell into, and on top of that it is a spell that normally you can only cast on yourself. That breaks a lot of rules.
6. I get the value/hinderance of changing a spells range, but Booming Blade shouldn’t work with this weapon, Shocking Grasp, eh, doesn’t really break anything to allow it.
I also don’t like the idea of my weapon crumbling, but my DM wants it closer to the wand, so I added an optional change
https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/254079-missile-longbow
1. I already believe the weapon to be balanced. It's not meant to be a weapon you get early in your adventure, so if it seems powerful, that's because it is. It's meant to make using a crossbow more viable to an EK and to overcome what I feel is a low amount of spell slots (understandably considering when they start learning spells, but still low).
2. You wrote "So if I am reading this correctly, you are allowing someone to fire this crossbow as part of casting a spell or as an attack? This then deals the spell damage and the bolt damage, having rolled a single attack die for both effects?" You also asked me to confirm based on your understanding. You had question marks and asked for confirmation. Also, since what you suggested was different than what I had, I couldn't assume what was a misunderstanding vs what was a suggested improvement. So I clarified for both you and anyone else who might look at it here later.
3. I never said Ice Knife wouldn't work the way you had it. I was just giving examples of spells that my reasoning and word choice applied to and, in the case of Ice Knife, it's the only spell I know off the top of my head that works like that. As for Magic Missile, I don't feel it weakens the spell to lose some distance to save some spell slots, especially since Magic Missile can be cast at higher levels. Arguably, an EK could cast it at level 9 despite normally only having access to level 4 spells. But again, Magic Missile was just an example spell.
4. All normal arcane spellcasters are already proficient with Light Crossbows. But that's not my concern for firing spells, which is why I didn't mention it until I brought up adding crossbow damage. Also, I thought it was understood that you'd fire the spell with your spellcasting proficiency which is why I didn't mention dex until bringing up crossbow damage.
5 I think it's pretty clear that a bolt must be used to fire a spell. That you prefer different language doesn't make it unclear. As for spamming cantrips, I gave the weapon the ability to add crossbow damage to spells, including cantrips. So theoretically, all damaging cantrips are stronger than before, thereby eliminating any reason to cast cantrips normally. Having the chance to run out of bolts, and thus preventing using the weapon to fire cantrips indefinitely in place of normal casting, is for balance. As for what cantrips are "intended for" I'm a firm believer in the idea that you can play dnd anyway you want so that there is no "intended for". An EK especially would probably use cantrips more often than most other arcane users.
As for you saying using the weapon to fire Shield and Absorb Elements at others breaks a lot of rules, you're mistaken. There are 5 spells on the wizard spell list that use reactions. Only Shield and Absorb Elements are used on just the caster. The other three are all used on others. So there's no rule against using your reaction to cast a spell on someone else and there's no rule on reaction spells only being cast on the caster *Looking over this, i feel this last sentence kinda repeats itself, but I'm keeping it*. So the only thing the weapon is doing in regards to Shield and Absorb Elements is changing the range from Self to something else like Touch or Sight or 80feet, all of which are ranges spells already use. That's all this weapon does when you come down to it: act as a focus, change the range of spells, give free spell slots, and add crossbow damage. It's not that radical of an idea. I think you are just used to thinking inside the box.
6. Booming Blade shouldn't work with this weapon why? Because it's a range weapon instead of a melee one? That's the only difference. Booming Blade works with this weapon as well as any other spell since the only thing being changed is the range ,which is exactly what this weapon is designed for. You can't even complain that the material component isn't right because the Spellslinger acts as a focus, thereby eliminating the need for material components. Now if you want to argue that EKs shouldn't be able to use a focus, that's a valid point. I designed the weapon specifically to overcome that shortcoming, but I wouldn't say you were wrong to argue it. But the idea that Booming Blade shouldn't be used with this weapon because it's a melee cantrip (which is just my assumption of what your reasoning is so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) just seems like another example of not thinking outside the box. And isn't that what homebrew is for, to think outside the established ideas of DnD?
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I hope to jump into the game with both feet.
3. Knowing that you are specifically thinking about an EK makes MM more valid as they are limited on spell slots, I was thinking more about full casters.
4. I think I understand now, it always fires a bolt, if you use your casting stat if doesn’t apply the bolt damage, if you use dex it does. Got it.
5. I would argue that requiring a bolt does nothing to stop spamming cantrips, for 5gp you can buy 100 bolts before you leave town. More then enough for a long time. I agree that you should play dnd anyway you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that cantrips are designed to be a casters defacto attack,
Yes, there are 5 spells that are reaction, the others though have a specific trigger that makes sense, and yes if you reworked absorb elements and shield to be applied to another character as a spell at the cost of a spell slot, ok, but to say that you can ten times a day increase anyone’s AC by 5 is really powerful, and no I am not ised to only thinking inside the box
6. booming blade shouldn’t work because you have to rewrite it for it to make sense, which is fine, if you want to rewrite go ahead, but to say it should work defies logic. You shoot a crossbow at someone 80 ft away while casting a spell that requires as part of the spell you to make a melee attack?
I am enjoying this discussion and look forward to your next reply.
1. We're on an EK forum and I said I made the weapon for my character which is an EK. So yes, an EK should be in mind as AN user if not THE user. That said, Magic Missile was still just an example spell.
2. You're mostly correct. It does only add bolt damage if you use dex. This is so you don't hurt your friends if you shoot a spell at them and so that casters who have a low dex can still use the weapon well. But I didn't say it always fires a bolt to cast a spell. I said it always uses a bolt to cast a spell. If you want to think of it as firing a bolt, that's fine, but I chose my words so that people who think of bolts being used up like material components can play that way. It also allows an opening for people to avoid arguments about the Loading feature crossbows have.
3. I too would argue that using a bolt doesn't do much to keep people from spamming cantrips. That's why I said "technically" when I first brought up that purpose. That said, bolts being cheap doesn't change the fact that it's hard to carry a lot of bolts. Some DMs are sticklers for encumbrance and/or the reality of what a character can carry, and everyone doesn't have a bag of holding.
4. Any changing of a spell is reworking it. The biggest thing the Spellslinger does to spells is change the range. For casters in general, it gives free slots. For battle, it has the opportunity to add bolt dam age, but the bolt damage itself isn't magical or part of the spell. For EKs, it acts as a pseudo focus. But what it does to spells specifically is change the range.
Think about what happens with Shield normally. You get attacked by an enemy (so it's not your turn). You actually get hit, and before you take actual damage, you cast the spell thereby increasing your AC. Your reaction is used to do this. Now think about using the Spellslinger to cast it. Your ally gets attacked by an enemy (so it's not your turn). They actually get hit, and before they take actual damage, you shoot the spell thereby increasing their AC. Your reaction is used to do this.
Only two things were changed in that scenario: who is being shielded and the range of the spell. And changing the range of the spell is the only thing that even allows the possibility of someone else being shielded, so again, the biggest thing done is changing the spell's range.
Think about what happens with Booming Blade normally. You try to attack someone with a melee weapon. If they get hit, they take the weapon's damage. If they then move from that spot before the end of their next turn, they take thunder damage. If they don't move, they take no damage (at higher levels they take thunder damage even if they don't move and additional damage if they do). Now think about what happens with Booming Blade using the Spellslinger. You try to attack someone with this magic (ranged) weapon. If they get hit, the spell activates (if they used dex to add bolt damage then they take weapon damage). If they then move from that spot etc., they take thunder damage. If they don't move, they take no damage (at higher levels etc.).
Only three things changed this time: the type of weapon used, the range of the spell, and the chance for no weapon damage on the initial hit. Not having initial weapon damage is a bit different, but it's entirely possible that the weapon damage when the spell is cast normally would be a 1; compared to a 0 it's not a big difference. Then when you take into account that they can choose to add bolt damage, then weapon damage is added with the initial hit thereby eliminating even that small change. As for the change in weapon type and spell range,changing the weapon type is the only thing that even allows the possibility of the range being changed for this particular spell (a reversal of the reasoning in the last paragraph), so again, the biggest change is the spell's range. And since you're already able to deal with Shocking Grasp's range being changed, you should be able to adjust to the idea of Booming Blade's and Shield's range being changed.
Yes, being able to raise someone else's AC ten times a day is powerful. But so is simply having an extra 1-10 spell slots. So is allowing short range spells to be cast at long range. So is giving an EK a pseudo focus. So is adding an extra 1d8 to every attack. The weapon is meant to be powerful, which is why it's for use later in the campaign. But even then, it's not SUPER powerful. It doesn't fire saving throw spells, which is most spells, and the highest official arcane spell with an attack roll is 7th level when cast normally, not even a 9th level spell. Hopefully, when viewed from this perspective, you can more easily accept and/or understand what the weapon does and doesn't do.
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I hope to jump into the game with both feet.
“Think about what happens with Shield normally. You get attacked by an enemy (so it's not your turn). You actually get hit, and before you take actual damage, you cast the spell thereby increasing your AC. Your reaction is used to do this. Now think about using the Spellslinger to cast it. Your ally gets attacked by an enemy (so it's not your turn). They actually get hit, and before they take actual damage, you shoot the spell thereby increasing their AC. Your reaction is used to do this.”
I have always thought of shield as, you see an attack about to happen and you reflexively cast shield, which may raise your ac enough to absorb the attack, negating the damage. Yeah, you could say that you see your friend about to be hit, so you react and fire off the spell.
So the only thing I am still unclear of, is this a weapon attack or a spell cast?
The use counting as an attack action or a spell significantly affects how it can be used.
The casting time for Shield is a reaction that occurs when you're hit by an attack or targeted by Magic Missile. So it's not throwing up an attack because you see an attack coming and think it MIGHT land, it's actually feeling the attack meet or exceed your AC (except for Magic Missile).
If you're asking me if you're making a weapon attack when firing Shield at a friend, it is not. You are casting the spell using the weapon as a focus. If it was a weapon attack, then an EK could cast multiple spells with the weapon due to them having multiple attacks with one attack action. That would be too strong.
So you can attack with the crossbow once as a weapon attack and then use a bonus action if you have one.
You can attack with the crossbow as a weapon multiple times, if you have the Crossbow Expert feat and your character has the multi attack action, and then use a bonus action if you have one.
But fired spells are subject to the casting time of the spell. So just like with any other spell, other than using Action Surge or Meta Magic, you can cast up to 2 spells per turn: a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action and a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. Using the Spellslinger won't change that, regardless of whether the spell does damage.
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I hope to jump into the game with both feet.
That’s a clever way of getting around a classes base mechanical limitation. I guess if your DM allows such a thing then have at it, but no way I’d allow an item that allows an EK more spell slots at my table nor would I want one on my EK either. He’s a mage killing sword swinging bad ass, a fighter that can cast. I save the caster who can do melee for my Sorcadin. I trust WoTC with their balancing play tests, and after seeing what a tier 3 EK is capable of without giving him more spell slots, that’s completely unbalancing.
I agree, but was happy to engage in discussion over the item. If it works for him and his group, go for it, I love homebrew.
Homebrew is fine as long as there is balance. I see a lot of homebrewing rules and items for players that have never played the class so they don’t even know how it plays under normal circumstances. Every class has its peaks and valleys, strengths and weaknesses. I definitely recommend playing in a group rules as written well into tier 3 before altering rules. A small power upgrade with an item could completely overpower and overshadow other characters which will lead to one of two outcomes: taking the item and angering the character that had it, or giving other characters boosts and turning fights into cakewalks. Just be mindful of what ya ask for with homebrew.
Again, I don't believe in the idea of there's only one way to play a character and that's the impressions you give as soon as you say "____ is a /supposed to do ____". Giving an EK more spell slots doesn't change the fact that he never gets access to 5th level spells and higher. so the idea that he suddenly becomes a stronger caster that unbalances the game with the Spellslinger is, at best, an exaggeration and, at worst, an unreasonable fear. I've said multiple times that it's a late game item.
As for trusting WoTC, the idea of homebrew doesn't equal not trusting them. But that doesn't mean they can't also make mistakes, either real or simply perceived, nor that there isn't room for improvement; I don't know what you mean by a "tier 3 EK", but the Erratta (sp) and UA exists for a reason. Maybe at least play a session or two with the weapon before assuming it has negative effects on the game. Having a differing opinion is fine, but speaking as if your opinion is a fact, especially without trying it for yourself just seems off to me.
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I hope to jump into the game with both feet.
I tend to agree, I offered some suggestions to the OP for balance and that isn't what they were looking for, so I adjusted my discussion. I Think even later levels giving an EK free 9th level spells is a bad idea but at the end of the day it isn't my game. I am curious to see what happens when they use it and hope they report back.
How is it an exaggeration to say that giving a player who normally can cast a spell at 4th level the ability to, every day, for free, cast any of their spells at 9th level makes them powerful. You can say it is a late game item, but you can't argue that it isn't a powerful item and anything that is really powerful has the potential to unbalance the game.
Will it break the game, probably not, will it wreck fights, absolutely if the DM doesn't account for it, but as long as the DM balances the encounters everything will be fine.
As for WoTC, yes - they add UA and errata, but there is no errata or UA that gives an EK more spell slots or a the ability to cast at higher levels. I say go for it, just make sure you come back here and tell us all how it went. I for one am curious to know how it functions.
It's an exaggeration to say that it WILL unbalance the game despite not having 5th level and higher spells, not an exaggeration to say it will make characters more powerful. Also, assuming that their DM even allows them to cast their spells up to 9th level (remember I only said that was arguably possible), unless they take a break for a day or three, they're only guaranteed to be able to cast at 9th level one time since they'd then have to roll a d10 at dawn to get those charges back. Even if they didn't use that last charge, unless they roll an 8, no 9th level spell that day. That's not going to happen every day.
And, let me remind you that not all spells can be cast at higher levels. While it is possible to have all 13 spells an EK knows be able to be cast at higher levels with the Spellslinger, I'd argue that it wouldn't be possible without planning it in advance. I looked into it and, since the weapon doesn't cast spells that initially require a saving throw, there are only 5 Evocation spells and 4 Abjuration spells (I don't count Glyph of Warding and Magic Circle, but I could see someone arguing to include them) that can be cast at higher levels. That's 9. And then when you add in the 4 spells you learn at levels 3, 8, 14, and 20 that can come from any school, you get 13. So it is doable, but, again, I don't think it's something that would happen organically since people are bound to have at least a couple spells that require saving throws.
Anyway, Pigeon didn't mention casting spells at higher levels as the unbalancing agent, but simply having more spell slots. 10 extra at level 1, 5 extra at level 2, 3 extra at level 3, and 2 extra at level 4 (and 5 if casting at higher levels, as well as 1 extra for levels 6-9). EKs and ATs have 11 spell slots so, at most, the weapon adds 10 low level spell slots for a total of 21 (all Full Casters except Warlock have 22) and 2 medium level spell slots for a total of 13 (Paladins and Rangers have 15). Also, Pigeon didn't mention unbalancing the game if Full Casters used it (they might feel that way, but didn't say it). So is it ok for a Wizard to have 23-32 spell slots or a Ranger to have 16-25? Let's leave that aside, though. Bottom line, using the Spellslinger will never make an EK as powerful a caster as a Full Caster either in number of spell slots nor in regards to a spell's strength since a Full Caster will always recharge their spells after a long rest while the weapon will not always do so. That's why I don't feel that the weapon unbalancing the game is a foregone conclusion.
I never said the UA or the Errata did what the Spellslinger does. I only mentioned it as evidence that Wizards doesn't consider itself perfect so the idea that Wizards said it and thus there's no room for change or improvement is flawed; they themselves think there's room for change and improvement by the fact that they put those out. Of course, that doesn't equal the EK needs improvement, but it also doesn't mean that it doesn't. All I'm saying is "I trust Wizards" is a poor justification for going against any homebrew idea since they themselves acknowledge they're not perfect.
I would love to tell you how the weapon handles, but I'm afraid it will be a long time. I'm only level 3, it's a late game item, we only play once a week, and my DM just told us that we're not playing this week. So unless I'm able to join a game that lets the characters start at higher levels, we'll have to hope someone uses it and leaves a comment about how good or bad it was. Of course, you or anyone else reading this are welcome to try it yourselves and tell me how it went.
A long time fantasy fan with very little DnD experience.
I hope to jump into the game with both feet.
Well, guess we can see.
I'm of the camp that likes to play as designed as much as possible. I like the peaks and valleys of classes and how they have strengths and weaknesses. My Abjuration wizard at tier 1 was borderline useless, was decent at tier 2, became super fun at tier 3, and finally at tier 4 was just insane. If I was to get an item that beefed up health or AC early, I wouldn’t have enjoyed it’s flavor as much. Most of my homebrew stuff is flavor items for RP and doesn’t change things mechanically. Play a class however you like, but actually play the class and not an altered version, at least at first. If you haven’t played to tier 3 or 4 how can you say that altering an EK wouldn’t unbalance it when I’ve played with one to 20 and have one myself at tier 3 that I can assure you would be with that.