A lot of things like this really depend on the players at the table. Sure, it could be done out of trying to beat someone at their game, but it could also be done out of friendly rivalry.
In building out our characters for an upcoming campaign that is supposed to be "shenanigan heavy", one of the guys said he was going to finally play a rogue and he is going to specialize in pickpocketing people as a tabaxi. To which I responded with, "then I'll steal it back from you and claim the rewards!" At first I was jesting, but then we both really liked the idea and can't wait to see how the dice rolls play out at the table.
On the other hand, in our current campaign, the person with the highest investigation never asks to make an investigation check, leaving it to everyone else to ask for those checks with trepidation. He just wanted to be able to focus on magic and it made sense to put his skill in investigation. Now, if he's trying to find out about something magical, he will do all kinds of checks, but he won't use the power of the skill he has without it being focused on something magical.
So a lot of things can look one way on paper, but may not actually be how it is played out at the table... or may exactly be the way it's played at the table. I mean, the alchemist and the rogue may see who can actually get to the chest first and try to open it, but maybe the rogue could care less about doors? No idea... but there's always a fun way to play in those situations... and there are always people who can make them unfun. I aim for finding the challenge and the fun!
Niche stealing is a really important principle to pay attention when designing new classes, subclasses, etc. It should also be taken into account when the DM wants to flex the rules for their party. But it is not something that players should be worrying about in their game, unless the player is attempting to abuse some odd rules loophole or request homebrew items.
As far as design goes, different classes can overlap on strengths and niches as long as there is a strong narrative backing for it. Being amazing with specific tools is a defining feature of artificers. It falls squarely in their domain, so there are no design blunders at play here.
Niche stealing is a really important principle to pay attention when designing new classes, subclasses, etc. It should also be taken into account when the DM wants to flex the rules for their party. But it is not something that players should be worrying about in their game, unless the player is attempting to abuse some odd rules loophole or request homebrew items.
As far as design goes, different classes can overlap on strengths and niches as long as there is a strong narrative backing for it. Being amazing with specific tools is a defining feature of artificers. It falls squarely in their domain, so there are no design blunders at play here.
Not sure I entirely agree. The blunder was creating yet another I can do anything class that steps all over existing archetypes.
I like a lot of things about modern D&D culture, but this constant need for game expansion without any semblance of setting makes the game less not more exciting. Its a bit like a video where its exciting with boundaries , the limits provide the challenge, creating interesting puzzles etc. but when you have the cheat code and can turn on god mode, the game gets boring. 5e is that game for me now. My interest in it is practically non-existent simply because it no longer has any semblance of a recognizable game. It's a strayed into the realm of gonzo silliness. Crazy cat people, turtle ninja's, Japanese anime pokemon people ... yea we got you covered. I don't know that I could tell you exactly what D&D is.. but I know this ain't it.
I find this to be one of the strong points of 5e. Not only can we have a zany one-shot where anything goes, but we can also have a serious campaign where only Humans are allowed. Each DM can limit what is available per campaign and make D&D fit how they want their world to work. Our table has definitely set different limits on different campaigns and have really enjoyed how the challenging aspects of it are worked through and also how it opens up and frees DMs to have visions of grandeur and play with the mind's eye. Heck, I'm doing an Orc only campaign right now and we're having a lot of fun because it is "us" against "them" (everybody else). So, yes, if you enjoy boundaries... set them at your table so that all of this is as realistic as you want it to be and as challenging as you want it to be at your table.
I don't know that I could tell you exactly what D&D is.. but I know this ain't it.
"This" is literally the biggest and most popular D&D has ever been, and it's not even close. Hard to argue with success, even if it doesn't line up with your preferences.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
5E has shifted away where every player has to run a job. Cleric, Thief, Fighter, Wizard. Now days you don't need a "balanced" party to play. With expansion of classes with each player source book you will get classes which overlap other classes. No problem there. But if you talking about Flawith trying to outbuild or steal Jasper's time in the sun, that is a player vs player problem. I have DMed for an all Paladin party with no problems for group (The monsters hated it). I have DMed plenty of times where the 1E balance was not present.
If Falwith is generally stepping on Jasper's toes then a discussion with both of them needs to happen.
I don't know that I could tell you exactly what D&D is.. but I know this ain't it.
"This" is literally the biggest and most popular D&D has ever been, and it's not even close. Hard to argue with success, even if it doesn't line up with your preferences.
There is no accounting for taste of the masses, the most popular beer in America is Bud Light, I would rather drink water from the toilet.
What I'm saying is, can't really blame WotC for catering to the taste of masses instead of that of a small fringe group who only drink monk-brewed craft beer that has to be imported from Belgium.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
5E has shifted away where every player has to run a job. Cleric, Thief, Fighter, Wizard. Now days you don't need a "balanced" party to play. With expansion of classes with each player source book you will get classes which overlap other classes. No problem there. But if you talking about Flawith trying to outbuild or steal Jasper's time in the sun, that is a player vs player problem. I have DMed for an all Paladin party with no problems for group (The monsters hated it). I have DMed plenty of times where the 1E balance was not present.
If Falwith is generally stepping on Jasper's toes then a discussion with both of them needs to happen.
This is what I was referring to. A group of players in a campaign where the Rogue has specifically chosen Expertise in his Tools to fill the role, and suddenly the Artificer has +4 or 5 bonus over him. Similarly, I see folks who have bumped Arcana giving them a bigger bonus than the Wizard, who planned at the start to be the "Arcana guy" Mind you none of these are BIG issues in our campaigns, but we do have a Fighter in one, who has a higher bonus to Arcana than the Druid (which MIGHT make sense-ish) and leaves her feeling a little less useful as a result. This is the Fighter's first campaign, and as such, he didn't understand the notion of working WITH us to help create a party with a wide range of skills. Also to note, his stats are a little goofy from trying to be good at everything. Ended up fairly competent at a lot of stuff, but not really GOOD at any of them.
I have zero issue with the myriad of skills and so forth that each class can attain, but when I read through so many posts where class X can do THIS and end up better at class Y's "signature skill" and ends up making the player feel like their character is worthless, it grates on my nerves. As a few have said, there IS a time for that (shenanigans/goofy games) but in a plain old campaign, where there isn't intended to be a bunch of silliness, parallel skillsets are a player issue. I was looking to see how many agreed that it's NOT the skills and abilities the classes CAN reach, so much as WHAT skills they choose to excel in that can create issues within the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Also why would you need to have stupid high DCs on lock picks just because there's a character with +18 lockpicking? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of investing in the skill in hte first place? The player clearly designed the character never to be stopped by a locked door ever again. This should not be mitigated by the DM imo.
Also why would you need to have stupid high DCs on lock picks just because there's a character with +18 lockpicking? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of investing in the skill in hte first place? The player clearly designed the character never to be stopped by a locked door ever again. This should not be mitigated by the DM imo.
Because a high level Rogue, or group in general, is not going to be wasting time with low end locks and traps with equally low end rewards.
What is the DC on picking the lock on your front door compared to the DC of breaking into a bank vault? It is perfectly valid to have a DC of say 15 for a lock for a 3rd or 4th level group. It is equally valid to have a DC of 25 for the group at 11th level. The challenge of the encounter goes up, in all aspects, not just the CR level of the monsters and NPC's.
If any lock can be picked by the Artificer with his +18, why should the DM even bother having locks in the campaign at all?
Now that said, there's no "reason" to have super mega hard locks anywhere. The locks should just be there if it's deemed they should be there for a reason. So what if the players can open them? Isn't that the point? Just like they are most likely supposed to be able to defeat the enemies they meet, they should be able to get through any traps or locks they face.
If someone is good at it, great! that's awesome, it's really cool to play a character that can open any lock! Well done! (i'm not being sarcastic, i think it's cool for real :) )
Now, outshining your other teammates is dumb though. Unless it's an actuall in game competition betwen two characters, then it's pretty cool.
As for unarmed fighter vs monk, I don't see this being a problem, even if the fighter deals more damage (gratz) the monk does other stuff too where the fighter probably don't do as much other stuff as the monk is able to. Same, but still different.
As long as the players aren't making other players feel bad because they are much better than them at the thing they tried to be good at, then it's not an issue.
Also why would you need to have stupid high DCs on lock picks just because there's a character with +18 lockpicking? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of investing in the skill in hte first place? The player clearly designed the character never to be stopped by a locked door ever again. This should not be mitigated by the DM imo.
Because a high level Rogue, or group in general, is not going to be wasting time with low end locks and traps with equally low end rewards.
What is the DC on picking the lock on your front door compared to the DC of breaking into a bank vault? It is perfectly valid to have a DC of say 15 for a lock for a 3rd or 4th level group. It is equally valid to have a DC of 25 for the group at 11th level. The challenge of the encounter goes up, in all aspects, not just the CR level of the monsters and NPC's.
If any lock can be picked by the Artificer with his +18, why should the DM even bother having locks in the campaign at all?
Those are not stupid high, particularly with things like Arcane Lock (only a 2nd level spell) giving a +10 to the DC for instance. The issue is not making a bank vault difficult to crack, those are supposed to be almost impregnable to anyone. The issue would be arbitrarily increasing the DCs on locks that are really only meant to stop casual attempts at breaking them open.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Also why would you need to have stupid high DCs on lock picks just because there's a character with +18 lockpicking? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of investing in the skill in hte first place? The player clearly designed the character never to be stopped by a locked door ever again. This should not be mitigated by the DM imo.
Because a high level Rogue, or group in general, is not going to be wasting time with low end locks and traps with equally low end rewards.
What is the DC on picking the lock on your front door compared to the DC of breaking into a bank vault? It is perfectly valid to have a DC of say 15 for a lock for a 3rd or 4th level group. It is equally valid to have a DC of 25 for the group at 11th level. The challenge of the encounter goes up, in all aspects, not just the CR level of the monsters and NPC's.
If any lock can be picked by the Artificer with his +18, why should the DM even bother having locks in the campaign at all?
Those are not stupid high, particularly with things like Arcane Lock (only a 2nd level spell) giving a +10 to the DC for instance. The issue is not making a bank vault difficult to crack, those are supposed to be almost impregnable to anyone. The issue would be arbitrarily increasing the DCs on locks that are really only meant to stop casual attempts at breaking them open.
But the point becomes that all locks, or any ability check that involves a tool, becomes laughably trivial in the game, if there is an Artificer in the group. As a DM, trying to make challenging, but still fun AND fair encounters just became that much harder. And don't say "Well, a good DM would adapt." Why should the DM's job be made any harder at all?
Also why would you need to have stupid high DCs on lock picks just because there's a character with +18 lockpicking? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of investing in the skill in hte first place? The player clearly designed the character never to be stopped by a locked door ever again. This should not be mitigated by the DM imo.
Because a high level Rogue, or group in general, is not going to be wasting time with low end locks and traps with equally low end rewards.
What is the DC on picking the lock on your front door compared to the DC of breaking into a bank vault? It is perfectly valid to have a DC of say 15 for a lock for a 3rd or 4th level group. It is equally valid to have a DC of 25 for the group at 11th level. The challenge of the encounter goes up, in all aspects, not just the CR level of the monsters and NPC's.
If any lock can be picked by the Artificer with his +18, why should the DM even bother having locks in the campaign at all?
Those are not stupid high, particularly with things like Arcane Lock (only a 2nd level spell) giving a +10 to the DC for instance. The issue is not making a bank vault difficult to crack, those are supposed to be almost impregnable to anyone. The issue would be arbitrarily increasing the DCs on locks that are really only meant to stop casual attempts at breaking them open.
But the point becomes that all locks, or any ability check that involves a tool, becomes laughably trivial in the game, if there is an Artificer in the group. As a DM, trying to make challenging, but still fun AND fair encounters just became that much harder. And don't say "Well, a good DM would adapt." Why should the DM's job be made any harder at all?
Artificers are not better than rogues. The only difference is gear, and only insofar that artificers have more control over what magical equipment is available - and even that can be curtailed by the DM, regardless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Also why would you need to have stupid high DCs on lock picks just because there's a character with +18 lockpicking? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of investing in the skill in hte first place? The player clearly designed the character never to be stopped by a locked door ever again. This should not be mitigated by the DM imo.
Because a high level Rogue, or group in general, is not going to be wasting time with low end locks and traps with equally low end rewards.
What is the DC on picking the lock on your front door compared to the DC of breaking into a bank vault? It is perfectly valid to have a DC of say 15 for a lock for a 3rd or 4th level group. It is equally valid to have a DC of 25 for the group at 11th level. The challenge of the encounter goes up, in all aspects, not just the CR level of the monsters and NPC's.
If any lock can be picked by the Artificer with his +18, why should the DM even bother having locks in the campaign at all?
Those are not stupid high, particularly with things like Arcane Lock (only a 2nd level spell) giving a +10 to the DC for instance. The issue is not making a bank vault difficult to crack, those are supposed to be almost impregnable to anyone. The issue would be arbitrarily increasing the DCs on locks that are really only meant to stop casual attempts at breaking them open.
Keep in mind that everyone relying on that one Arcane Lock caster is trusting that caster. Also requires at least a 3rd level caster who has nothing better to do.
AND, if such a person is going around locking everything, then the gloves become much more mandatory.
Sure, but that's the point. How many reasons are there for a caster to spend 2nd level slots on locking the kitchen door?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Also why would you need to have stupid high DCs on lock picks just because there's a character with +18 lockpicking? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of investing in the skill in hte first place? The player clearly designed the character never to be stopped by a locked door ever again. This should not be mitigated by the DM imo.
Because a high level Rogue, or group in general, is not going to be wasting time with low end locks and traps with equally low end rewards.
What is the DC on picking the lock on your front door compared to the DC of breaking into a bank vault? It is perfectly valid to have a DC of say 15 for a lock for a 3rd or 4th level group. It is equally valid to have a DC of 25 for the group at 11th level. The challenge of the encounter goes up, in all aspects, not just the CR level of the monsters and NPC's.
If any lock can be picked by the Artificer with his +18, why should the DM even bother having locks in the campaign at all?
Those are not stupid high, particularly with things like Arcane Lock (only a 2nd level spell) giving a +10 to the DC for instance. The issue is not making a bank vault difficult to crack, those are supposed to be almost impregnable to anyone. The issue would be arbitrarily increasing the DCs on locks that are really only meant to stop casual attempts at breaking them open.
But the point becomes that all locks, or any ability check that involves a tool, becomes laughably trivial in the game, if there is an Artificer in the group. As a DM, trying to make challenging, but still fun AND fair encounters just became that much harder. And don't say "Well, a good DM would adapt." Why should the DM's job be made any harder at all?
Artificers are not better than rogues. The only difference is gear, and only insofar that artificers have more control over what magical equipment is available - and even that can be curtailed by the DM, regardless.
I would suggest that Artifcers are indeed "better than Rogues", as an overall class. This particular aspect of the class is just one area. I do know that I run a campaign where magical items are relatively scarce. (5th-8th level chars MIGHT have a max of 2 Uncommon items). An Artificer breaks my campaign, and are banned from my table. But that point is moot to this particular aspect.
A wizard taking Arcane Lock is no different from an artificer who decides to specialise in lock picking. If the artificer is using one of their infusions to make the gloves, then they don't have that infusion available for anything else; there is a lot of focus being made by the artificer to be good at lock picking.
Is this thread about stealing the Thunder from other players or is it about Artificers being an OP class or what?
I generally think players need to let everyone have some of the spotlight. And I reinforce this by thanking other players after the session for something they did particularly well to help the party get through an encounter. "Hey", I say to the player of our War Cleric, "that Spirit Guardians spell you used really messed up those swamp monsters last Saturday."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A lot of things like this really depend on the players at the table. Sure, it could be done out of trying to beat someone at their game, but it could also be done out of friendly rivalry.
In building out our characters for an upcoming campaign that is supposed to be "shenanigan heavy", one of the guys said he was going to finally play a rogue and he is going to specialize in pickpocketing people as a tabaxi. To which I responded with, "then I'll steal it back from you and claim the rewards!" At first I was jesting, but then we both really liked the idea and can't wait to see how the dice rolls play out at the table.
On the other hand, in our current campaign, the person with the highest investigation never asks to make an investigation check, leaving it to everyone else to ask for those checks with trepidation. He just wanted to be able to focus on magic and it made sense to put his skill in investigation. Now, if he's trying to find out about something magical, he will do all kinds of checks, but he won't use the power of the skill he has without it being focused on something magical.
So a lot of things can look one way on paper, but may not actually be how it is played out at the table... or may exactly be the way it's played at the table. I mean, the alchemist and the rogue may see who can actually get to the chest first and try to open it, but maybe the rogue could care less about doors? No idea... but there's always a fun way to play in those situations... and there are always people who can make them unfun. I aim for finding the challenge and the fun!
Niche stealing is a really important principle to pay attention when designing new classes, subclasses, etc. It should also be taken into account when the DM wants to flex the rules for their party. But it is not something that players should be worrying about in their game, unless the player is attempting to abuse some odd rules loophole or request homebrew items.
As far as design goes, different classes can overlap on strengths and niches as long as there is a strong narrative backing for it. Being amazing with specific tools is a defining feature of artificers. It falls squarely in their domain, so there are no design blunders at play here.
I find this to be one of the strong points of 5e. Not only can we have a zany one-shot where anything goes, but we can also have a serious campaign where only Humans are allowed. Each DM can limit what is available per campaign and make D&D fit how they want their world to work. Our table has definitely set different limits on different campaigns and have really enjoyed how the challenging aspects of it are worked through and also how it opens up and frees DMs to have visions of grandeur and play with the mind's eye. Heck, I'm doing an Orc only campaign right now and we're having a lot of fun because it is "us" against "them" (everybody else). So, yes, if you enjoy boundaries... set them at your table so that all of this is as realistic as you want it to be and as challenging as you want it to be at your table.
"This" is literally the biggest and most popular D&D has ever been, and it's not even close. Hard to argue with success, even if it doesn't line up with your preferences.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
5E has shifted away where every player has to run a job. Cleric, Thief, Fighter, Wizard. Now days you don't need a "balanced" party to play. With expansion of classes with each player source book you will get classes which overlap other classes. No problem there. But if you talking about Flawith trying to outbuild or steal Jasper's time in the sun, that is a player vs player problem. I have DMed for an all Paladin party with no problems for group (The monsters hated it). I have DMed plenty of times where the 1E balance was not present.
If Falwith is generally stepping on Jasper's toes then a discussion with both of them needs to happen.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
What I'm saying is, can't really blame WotC for catering to the taste of masses instead of that of a small fringe group who only drink monk-brewed craft beer that has to be imported from Belgium.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Nothing wrong with artificers in my book, but noted.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is what I was referring to. A group of players in a campaign where the Rogue has specifically chosen Expertise in his Tools to fill the role, and suddenly the Artificer has +4 or 5 bonus over him. Similarly, I see folks who have bumped Arcana giving them a bigger bonus than the Wizard, who planned at the start to be the "Arcana guy" Mind you none of these are BIG issues in our campaigns, but we do have a Fighter in one, who has a higher bonus to Arcana than the Druid (which MIGHT make sense-ish) and leaves her feeling a little less useful as a result. This is the Fighter's first campaign, and as such, he didn't understand the notion of working WITH us to help create a party with a wide range of skills. Also to note, his stats are a little goofy from trying to be good at everything. Ended up fairly competent at a lot of stuff, but not really GOOD at any of them.
I have zero issue with the myriad of skills and so forth that each class can attain, but when I read through so many posts where class X can do THIS and end up better at class Y's "signature skill" and ends up making the player feel like their character is worthless, it grates on my nerves. As a few have said, there IS a time for that (shenanigans/goofy games) but in a plain old campaign, where there isn't intended to be a bunch of silliness, parallel skillsets are a player issue. I was looking to see how many agreed that it's NOT the skills and abilities the classes CAN reach, so much as WHAT skills they choose to excel in that can create issues within the game.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
test
URL=http://www.nodiatis.com/personality.htm][IMG]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/6.jpg
Also why would you need to have stupid high DCs on lock picks just because there's a character with +18 lockpicking? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of investing in the skill in hte first place? The player clearly designed the character never to be stopped by a locked door ever again. This should not be mitigated by the DM imo.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Because a high level Rogue, or group in general, is not going to be wasting time with low end locks and traps with equally low end rewards.
What is the DC on picking the lock on your front door compared to the DC of breaking into a bank vault? It is perfectly valid to have a DC of say 15 for a lock for a 3rd or 4th level group. It is equally valid to have a DC of 25 for the group at 11th level. The challenge of the encounter goes up, in all aspects, not just the CR level of the monsters and NPC's.
If any lock can be picked by the Artificer with his +18, why should the DM even bother having locks in the campaign at all?
A level 2 conjurer wizard could make a copy of the key and open a dc 100000 lock if they just saw it once. Just saying.
Now that said, there's no "reason" to have super mega hard locks anywhere. The locks should just be there if it's deemed they should be there for a reason. So what if the players can open them? Isn't that the point? Just like they are most likely supposed to be able to defeat the enemies they meet, they should be able to get through any traps or locks they face.
If someone is good at it, great! that's awesome, it's really cool to play a character that can open any lock! Well done! (i'm not being sarcastic, i think it's cool for real :) )
Now, outshining your other teammates is dumb though. Unless it's an actuall in game competition betwen two characters, then it's pretty cool.
As for unarmed fighter vs monk, I don't see this being a problem, even if the fighter deals more damage (gratz) the monk does other stuff too where the fighter probably don't do as much other stuff as the monk is able to. Same, but still different.
As long as the players aren't making other players feel bad because they are much better than them at the thing they tried to be good at, then it's not an issue.
Those are not stupid high, particularly with things like Arcane Lock (only a 2nd level spell) giving a +10 to the DC for instance. The issue is not making a bank vault difficult to crack, those are supposed to be almost impregnable to anyone. The issue would be arbitrarily increasing the DCs on locks that are really only meant to stop casual attempts at breaking them open.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But the point becomes that all locks, or any ability check that involves a tool, becomes laughably trivial in the game, if there is an Artificer in the group. As a DM, trying to make challenging, but still fun AND fair encounters just became that much harder. And don't say "Well, a good DM would adapt." Why should the DM's job be made any harder at all?
Artificers are not better than rogues. The only difference is gear, and only insofar that artificers have more control over what magical equipment is available - and even that can be curtailed by the DM, regardless.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sure, but that's the point. How many reasons are there for a caster to spend 2nd level slots on locking the kitchen door?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would suggest that Artifcers are indeed "better than Rogues", as an overall class. This particular aspect of the class is just one area. I do know that I run a campaign where magical items are relatively scarce. (5th-8th level chars MIGHT have a max of 2 Uncommon items). An Artificer breaks my campaign, and are banned from my table. But that point is moot to this particular aspect.
A wizard taking Arcane Lock is no different from an artificer who decides to specialise in lock picking. If the artificer is using one of their infusions to make the gloves, then they don't have that infusion available for anything else; there is a lot of focus being made by the artificer to be good at lock picking.
Is this thread about stealing the Thunder from other players or is it about Artificers being an OP class or what?
I generally think players need to let everyone have some of the spotlight. And I reinforce this by thanking other players after the session for something they did particularly well to help the party get through an encounter. "Hey", I say to the player of our War Cleric, "that Spirit Guardians spell you used really messed up those swamp monsters last Saturday."
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt