Playing as a twilight cleric currently (levels 1-6). Can honestly say one little concession changed the game and a lot of the “super benefits”. Changing from heavy armor to medium armor undoes most of my setups. I spend more time dodging and moving around than sitting and “temp healing”.
Most monsters have a habit of trying to split us up anyway, and most humanoids are too smart to just let everyone huddle around me, so half the time it’s not worth using my aura. Add in some undead who won’t stay down and I’m using my CD to repel them instead.
Dark vision is kind of irrelevant. Distance doesn’t matter if there are obstacles, and if it’s a wide area, then enemies tend to come from multiple directions. At best, I’m a slightly more detailed alarm system. Also, magical darkness and obscurement render dark vision moot.
In a void it sounds OP, but in practice, things very rarely pan out ideally. Especially when enemies can see the bubble of darkness and tell exactly what the range is, and when your fellow players have their own objectives. Including trading blows with a creature with multi-attack who like to defend the magic user who likes to use charm spells or the monster who is fond of their frightening presence, making you choose which player to go after and wasting time using your movement, then having to heal the other when you get back because temp hp doesn’t matter if you’re dropped to 0.
I've been running games for a while now and have a pretty good grip on adjusting to the various shenanigans that players drop on you. This being said, I have never DM'd a Twilight cleric before.
I know that they have a ton of awesome abilities and that I will have to watch 'player interpretation' of these abilities.
Any advice on running a game with one of these OP-meta clerics?
Evan
Remember, as a DM, you can ban any subclass, any or all feats, any species, ANYTHING at all, that you don't want at your table, for any reason. It may be OP. It may not fit the setting. It may be some other reason. It is your table. Just use your best judgement.
That's the least fun route though. Sure you can ban stuff you players find joy in. But should you?
Better to let them enjoy the characters they looking to enjoy, in my opinion. Sure, follow the framework the game gives us all, but within that framework the sky's the limit. let the have their fun. That's why we play games right? Fun?
I mean, by all means if there is a specific game setting or lore/story reason add some restriction if it adds to the narrative. But just ban stuff because it is powerful? Characters are supposed to be powerful.
If you wanna put the screw on them, just target the party with dangers that have nothing to do with HP directly, from time to time. I mean, you should be doing that already, just increase it a bit in a game with one of these guys. Let them shine when the situation is right, but add some spicey moments in there where the threat is something more severe than getting smacked by a club or whatever.
Besides, enemies that focus fire one PC at a time almost entirely negate the real power of their twilight sanctuary. If only one dude is getting wrecked, he's only getting one serving of THP a round. But if everyone is getting targeted, they're each benefitting from a server of THP a round. So the more focused the bad guys the less effective the twilight sanctuary.
Anyway, that's all opinion. Take it with a grain of salt. But I've never had an issue balancing combat for one of these guys. It'd be a shame if people are out here banning people's fun just because.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's the least fun route though. Sure you can ban stuff you players find joy in. But should you?
Someone doesn't play a twilight cleric because they're interesting -- they're mechanically quite boring. You play a twilight cleric because you want to be OP.
Broadly speaking, you will get better results out of just telling a player "No" than by letting them make the character and then trying to work around the brokenness.
That's the least fun route though. Sure you can ban stuff you players find joy in. But should you?
Someone doesn't play a twilight cleric because they're interesting -- they're mechanically quite boring. You play a twilight cleric because you want to be OP.
I try not to judge people's motivations before they've even voiced them. Personally.
Also, maybe just my opinion, but I think they're very interesting. It has major vigilante of the night vibes. Cleric batman, so to speak.
I've never saw need to ban a player from playing one. They're neat.
Broadly speaking, you will get better results out of just telling a player "No" than by letting them make the character and then trying to work around the brokenness.
I'm not sure how banning one of my player's characters is going to give my table better results. I really bet it wouldn't!
"Frank, I know you've grown attached to this character of yours over the past year, who is a cornerstone of the party and who everyone loves, I need you to just let me drop a giant rock on his head and you can reroll because the internet told me you're destroying the game. Sorry pal."
I don't see it being good for the game.
I jest a little, but genuinely, there is no issue with these guys in the game. Like none. They don't really break anything meaningful. They don't even begin to break the game like a high level wizard can.
I mean it. The party having a good health buffer ain't the end of the world. It is actually a good thing. You wanna see your party take big risks and make bold choices? Have a twilight cleric join em and have em get used to that sweet sweet sanctuary. It is such a mood boost for them that leads to crazy fun antics.
It is far from bad. And, again, should I need to put the screws on the party it is remarkably easy still. You don't need to crunch through the thp to have dramatic tension. Low HP is a crutch for that. The drama of whether or not the party dies should be reserved for low energy nights where you can't give the game your proper DM focus.
It is the least rewarding dramatic tension possible. Anything is better than that. Can they save the cute orphan they got attached to? Can they race to the top of the mages tower before he tears a hole in reality? Can stop the antagonist before he gets the mcguffin!? The stakes of low party HP are the last thing you should be banking on to create the drama in your game.
So yeah, I really don't see a problem with them or any other powerful class options. The only stuff I'd ever ban would be for narrative reasons, tone and the like. Or, rarely, for features that are cumbersome and meddle too much with the flow of the game. But ban it because I'm afraid of a PC who can give the party some THP? Not likely.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
a char that is out of whack on the power scale with the rest of the group makes the game less fun for the other players
I'm not so sure giving the rest of the party buffs makes them have "less fun" or feel "less powerful". The opposite seem true. No? Do people out there get upset when a party member buffs them too good? That's a thing?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not sure how banning one of my player's characters is going to give my table better results. I really bet it wouldn't!
"Frank, I know you've grown attached to this character of yours over the past year, who is a cornerstone of the party and who everyone loves, I need you to just let me drop a giant rock on his head and you can reroll because the internet told me you're destroying the game. Sorry pal."
That's why you don't let them create the character in the first place. The original post wasn't about an existing campaign. That said, I have certainly run into situations where a given PC was making the game worse, but they didn't qualify as "everyone loves". More "one or more other players actively complained".
I'm not sure how banning one of my player's characters is going to give my table better results. I really bet it wouldn't!
"Frank, I know you've grown attached to this character of yours over the past year, who is a cornerstone of the party and who everyone loves, I need you to just let me drop a giant rock on his head and you can reroll because the internet told me you're destroying the game. Sorry pal."
That's why you don't let them create the character in the first place. The original post wasn't about an existing campaign. That said, I have certainly run into situations where a given PC was making the game worse, but they didn't qualify as "everyone loves". More "one or more other players actively complained".
Further to that point, I wonder if this poster's concept of "everyone" includes the DM.
It should be pretty clear that I am the DM. So yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's the least fun route though. Sure you can ban stuff you players find joy in. But should you?
Someone doesn't play a twilight cleric because they're interesting -- they're mechanically quite boring. You play a twilight cleric because you want to be OP.
Broadly speaking, you will get better results out of just telling a player "No" than by letting them make the character and then trying to work around the brokenness.
I don't really agree that they are boring. Twilight as a domain is a good idea because we needed a less bombastic light domain. The light domain is very much " I AM THE SUN" it doesn't work well for the the kind of " light in the darkness" style cleric that suits a god like Selune.
Twilight sanctuary also hits the common trope of the wizard or cleric magically protecting a village or blessing it's allies. The problem is that the levels it gives things are all wrong, it gives the equivalent of heroism for the whole party at level 1. It really should have been gained at level 6 and gone up a d6 every two levels while half cover which is the 17th level ability should have been it's level 1 ability.
Dark vision is fine
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Playing as a twilight cleric currently (levels 1-6). Can honestly say one little concession changed the game and a lot of the “super benefits”. Changing from heavy armor to medium armor undoes most of my setups. I spend more time dodging and moving around than sitting and “temp healing”.
Most monsters have a habit of trying to split us up anyway, and most humanoids are too smart to just let everyone huddle around me, so half the time it’s not worth using my aura. Add in some undead who won’t stay down and I’m using my CD to repel them instead.
Dark vision is kind of irrelevant. Distance doesn’t matter if there are obstacles, and if it’s a wide area, then enemies tend to come from multiple directions. At best, I’m a slightly more detailed alarm system. Also, magical darkness and obscurement render dark vision moot.
In a void it sounds OP, but in practice, things very rarely pan out ideally. Especially when enemies can see the bubble of darkness and tell exactly what the range is, and when your fellow players have their own objectives. Including trading blows with a creature with multi-attack who like to defend the magic user who likes to use charm spells or the monster who is fond of their frightening presence, making you choose which player to go after and wasting time using your movement, then having to heal the other when you get back because temp hp doesn’t matter if you’re dropped to 0.
That's the least fun route though. Sure you can ban stuff you players find joy in. But should you?
Better to let them enjoy the characters they looking to enjoy, in my opinion. Sure, follow the framework the game gives us all, but within that framework the sky's the limit. let the have their fun. That's why we play games right? Fun?
I mean, by all means if there is a specific game setting or lore/story reason add some restriction if it adds to the narrative. But just ban stuff because it is powerful? Characters are supposed to be powerful.
If you wanna put the screw on them, just target the party with dangers that have nothing to do with HP directly, from time to time. I mean, you should be doing that already, just increase it a bit in a game with one of these guys. Let them shine when the situation is right, but add some spicey moments in there where the threat is something more severe than getting smacked by a club or whatever.
Besides, enemies that focus fire one PC at a time almost entirely negate the real power of their twilight sanctuary. If only one dude is getting wrecked, he's only getting one serving of THP a round. But if everyone is getting targeted, they're each benefitting from a server of THP a round. So the more focused the bad guys the less effective the twilight sanctuary.
Anyway, that's all opinion. Take it with a grain of salt. But I've never had an issue balancing combat for one of these guys. It'd be a shame if people are out here banning people's fun just because.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Someone doesn't play a twilight cleric because they're interesting -- they're mechanically quite boring. You play a twilight cleric because you want to be OP.
Broadly speaking, you will get better results out of just telling a player "No" than by letting them make the character and then trying to work around the brokenness.
I try not to judge people's motivations before they've even voiced them. Personally.
Also, maybe just my opinion, but I think they're very interesting. It has major vigilante of the night vibes. Cleric batman, so to speak.
I've never saw need to ban a player from playing one. They're neat.
I'm not sure how banning one of my player's characters is going to give my table better results. I really bet it wouldn't!
"Frank, I know you've grown attached to this character of yours over the past year, who is a cornerstone of the party and who everyone loves, I need you to just let me drop a giant rock on his head and you can reroll because the internet told me you're destroying the game. Sorry pal."
I don't see it being good for the game.
I jest a little, but genuinely, there is no issue with these guys in the game. Like none. They don't really break anything meaningful. They don't even begin to break the game like a high level wizard can.
I mean it. The party having a good health buffer ain't the end of the world. It is actually a good thing. You wanna see your party take big risks and make bold choices? Have a twilight cleric join em and have em get used to that sweet sweet sanctuary. It is such a mood boost for them that leads to crazy fun antics.
It is far from bad. And, again, should I need to put the screws on the party it is remarkably easy still. You don't need to crunch through the thp to have dramatic tension. Low HP is a crutch for that. The drama of whether or not the party dies should be reserved for low energy nights where you can't give the game your proper DM focus.
It is the least rewarding dramatic tension possible. Anything is better than that. Can they save the cute orphan they got attached to? Can they race to the top of the mages tower before he tears a hole in reality? Can stop the antagonist before he gets the mcguffin!? The stakes of low party HP are the last thing you should be banking on to create the drama in your game.
So yeah, I really don't see a problem with them or any other powerful class options. The only stuff I'd ever ban would be for narrative reasons, tone and the like. Or, rarely, for features that are cumbersome and meddle too much with the flow of the game. But ban it because I'm afraid of a PC who can give the party some THP? Not likely.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not so sure giving the rest of the party buffs makes them have "less fun" or feel "less powerful". The opposite seem true. No? Do people out there get upset when a party member buffs them too good? That's a thing?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's why you don't let them create the character in the first place. The original post wasn't about an existing campaign. That said, I have certainly run into situations where a given PC was making the game worse, but they didn't qualify as "everyone loves". More "one or more other players actively complained".
It should be pretty clear that I am the DM. So yes.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't really agree that they are boring. Twilight as a domain is a good idea because we needed a less bombastic light domain. The light domain is very much " I AM THE SUN" it doesn't work well for the the kind of " light in the darkness" style cleric that suits a god like Selune.
Twilight sanctuary also hits the common trope of the wizard or cleric magically protecting a village or blessing it's allies. The problem is that the levels it gives things are all wrong, it gives the equivalent of heroism for the whole party at level 1. It really should have been gained at level 6 and gone up a d6 every two levels while half cover which is the 17th level ability should have been it's level 1 ability.
Dark vision is fine