And RAW, no, you can't tell the difference before you cast Shield. It still takes some small amount of time to complete, so you have to start mumbling & waving you hands before you know if it is going to be a glancing blow, a skewer, or somewhere in between. That is because one attack roll isn't just one swing. It's a series of feints, counters, & maneuvers as well as the swing that potentially connects.
Please quote the rule on that which makes it RAW
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And RAW, no, you can't tell the difference before you cast Shield. It still takes some small amount of time to complete, so you have to start mumbling & waving you hands before you know if it is going to be a glancing blow, a skewer, or somewhere in between. That is because one attack roll isn't just one swing. It's a series of feints, counters, & maneuvers as well as the swing that potentially connects.
Please quote the rule on that which makes it RAW
The description in the spell. "* - which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" Not when you find out how solid the hit is or if it is a critical hit or any other information. Just when you are hit.
And RAW, no, you can't tell the difference before you cast Shield. It still takes some small amount of time to complete, so you have to start mumbling & waving you hands before you know if it is going to be a glancing blow, a skewer, or somewhere in between. That is because one attack roll isn't just one swing. It's a series of feints, counters, & maneuvers as well as the swing that potentially connects.
Please quote the rule on that which makes it RAW
The description in the spell. "* - which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" Not when you find out how solid the hit is or if it is a critical hit or any other information. Just when you are hit.
That offers no guidance on how the DM can announce that hit
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And RAW, no, you can't tell the difference before you cast Shield. It still takes some small amount of time to complete, so you have to start mumbling & waving you hands before you know if it is going to be a glancing blow, a skewer, or somewhere in between. That is because one attack roll isn't just one swing. It's a series of feints, counters, & maneuvers as well as the swing that potentially connects.
Please quote the rule on that which makes it RAW
The description in the spell. "* - which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" Not when you find out how solid the hit is or if it is a critical hit or any other information. Just when you are hit.
That offers no guidance on how the DM can announce that hit
Well here are the two ways I have seen it handled (and some of this was already mentioned)
First, you as the DM, determine that you would hit the player without revealing the roll. The player then chooses to shield, and then DM tells them the new result.
The other way (this is done at my table for streamlining reasons,) the DM asks if a X number hits them, and the player would smile and say "Not anymore." This doesn't work with DM's who prefer to keep the numbers out of the dialog, but it is quicker.
I have little cards that I put up (in initiative order) that gives me my player's character names, AC, and passive perception. I just tell them hit, miss, or crit. Interestingly, I have never dived into the rules to see if there's a RAW way of doing it. I noticed Monty from Dungeon Dudes announces the roll, "Does 18 hit?" kind of thing. I don't know if he always does it that way, but I noticed it in his recent 2-shot campaign.
I'll add my 2 cents. Just kind of my main takeaways, because covering every thought would take a while and I'm wiped this evening.
No shield spell: I would not mind this house rule, but it would definitely affect some of my build choices. My Hexoquence Bard concept, that I have not yet played, would be out. But I have plenty of other build ideas that I'm looking forward to playing.
Limiting armor from spellcasters: I do like that this sets the flavor to old school D&D. If you're a Wizard; for example, wizard's robes and such (and there's still mage armor). Also Treantmonk openly admits he's very spell happy, and he sees spells as the most powerful tool in D&D. As such he's forcing players to accept the downside that a single class wizard, or sorcerer, etc. is given to compensate for their powerful spells.
(-5 +10). I'm neutral to the previous house rules, but I actually like this one. Worth noting it does not apply to a bonus action. For optmizers GWM and SS are *must have* feats. You can still take them to make the -5 +10 also apply to bonus action attacks ), and get all the other benefits. But now other weapon options and (my favorite part) other feats become more appealing. Too powerful a buff? From Treantmonk's this is bringing martial classes up a knotch, closer to those powerful spell casters. I haven't played enough in mid-high tier to know if I agree with his bias toward magic. But reading the mid-high level spell list, dam spell casters can do some really powerful things.
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
Also wondering about how he deals with Mountain Dwarves, Lizardmen, Draconic Sorcerers, Tortles, Loxodons, Elven Chain, Robes of the Archmagi, and so on.
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
Also wondering about how he deals with Mountain Dwarves, Lizardmen, Draconic Sorcerers, Tortles, Loxodons, Elven Chain, Robes of the Archmagi, and so on.
Well with the exception of the Mountain Dwarves, I think those all result in a different calculation of AC (race wise), and the armors are just exceptions he has to deal with.
Snark wise; they never come up because they are suboptimal for random reason :)
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
Also wondering about how he deals with Mountain Dwarves, Lizardmen, Draconic Sorcerers, Tortles, Loxodons, Elven Chain, Robes of the Archmagi, and so on.
Well with the exception of the Mountain Dwarves, I think those all result in a different calculation of AC (race wise), and the armors are just exceptions he has to deal with.
Snark wise; they never come up because they are suboptimal for random reason :)
They are suboptimal in normal games. But if you strip out Shield & any armor (and especially if he lets you assign your +2 & +1 where you like), that obviously increases the value of AC from other sources. And all your Wizards are now Bladesingers. All your Bards are Sword/Valor.
Final comments: Trying to out-maneuver power gamers is pointless, they'll just find the new optimal pick. Better to roll with them, because PCs aren't the only smart people in your game world. Other people would have figured out what the players have, and do same thing and/or have counters for them. Treantmonk's world should have numerous opponents that are armored mages casting spells that require saves, ability checks or punish people for wearing armor, since that is the best to gain power & stop other powerful people.
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
Also wondering about how he deals with Mountain Dwarves, Lizardmen, Draconic Sorcerers, Tortles, Loxodons, Elven Chain, Robes of the Archmagi, and so on.
He explains in the video that armor via race proficiency is also out, but that allowing it isn't really an issue since shield proficiency is never included. He does not rule out natural armor.
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
#3: When you use the attack action to make an attack with a weapon or unarmed strike, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to that attack role. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the damage role. (note, does not apply to bonus action attacks).
#1: A hard no. Shield IMHO is necessary for full-casters at the very least. At best I'd increase the level of the shield spell from 1 to 3, so it's not worth it for martials to multiclass dip just for Shield spell access - that, and/or make it so the +5 overlaps with rather than stacks with AC from already existing shield (and/or armor?).
#2: A hard no. One point of a full caster taking a multiclass dip is to obtain armor and/or shield proficiency as well as weapon proficiency; specifically so they can have a proper AC at the same time as they are being a caster. "I" have a bard with 1 level of life cleric using a breastplate and shield for an 18 AC, and would not want to be told I can't cast unless I'm in leather armor and shieldless; I don't want to be railroaded into having use prescious spells known/slots for mage armor/shield spell rather than the utility spells I have taken already. I'm looking to make it a mithral breastplate, which means it wont even ruin my costume.
#3: Perhaps... I don't necessarily have any objections to this one anyway as it frees up two feat slots, and there are already too many more feats than there are available slots for which to enjoy them.
#2: A leveled spell gained through a class may only be cast with armor or shield equipped if that class provides the proficiency for that armor or shield.
Also wondering about how he deals with Mountain Dwarves, Lizardmen, Draconic Sorcerers, Tortles, Loxodons, Elven Chain, Robes of the Archmagi, and so on.
He explains in the video that armor via race proficiency is also out, but that allowing it isn't really an issue since shield proficiency is never included. He does not rule out natural armor.
Right, but he didn't say what Mountain Dwarves get in return (or I missed it). Or does he just straight nerf them?
Yeah treatmonk probably should of compensated a tiny bit for armor proficiencies (both in multiclassing and in races). Removing the armor feats as well was a equally bad call.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Yeah treatmonk probably should of compensated a tiny bit for armor proficiencies (both in multiclassing and in races). Removing the armor feats as well was a equally bad call.
He does say if someone wants to modify it to allow racial armor proficiency, that would still be fine.
I think people need to understand his reasons and intentions. He is not saying the Shield spell, nor casters dipping classes for armor/shields breaks the game. He has even done build demos where he does this himself. He's making full casters more like classical full casters, a robe wearing glass cannon that needs to use abilities (like misty step) and tactics to avoid damage. And also he is very biased toward spells, meaning he loves them and he considers Wizards and Sorcerers to be the most powerful class in the game. In his mind he's bringing the power level of full casters and martial classes closer together. And even the full caster classes closer together. He considers Clerics to have weaker spells than Wizards and Sorcerers. But Clerics get armor and shields, so that compensates. Now it's actually meaningful compensation instead of the Sorcerer just being able to take 1 level of Hexblade.
I interpret his intentions as just an alternate, interesting set of guidelines to play with. Not, "OMG this is OP let's kill it."
Please quote the rule on that which makes it RAW
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The description in the spell. "* - which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" Not when you find out how solid the hit is or if it is a critical hit or any other information. Just when you are hit.
That offers no guidance on how the DM can announce that hit
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well here are the two ways I have seen it handled (and some of this was already mentioned)
First, you as the DM, determine that you would hit the player without revealing the roll. The player then chooses to shield, and then DM tells them the new result.
The other way (this is done at my table for streamlining reasons,) the DM asks if a X number hits them, and the player would smile and say "Not anymore." This doesn't work with DM's who prefer to keep the numbers out of the dialog, but it is quicker.
I have little cards that I put up (in initiative order) that gives me my player's character names, AC, and passive perception. I just tell them hit, miss, or crit. Interestingly, I have never dived into the rules to see if there's a RAW way of doing it. I noticed Monty from Dungeon Dudes announces the roll, "Does 18 hit?" kind of thing. I don't know if he always does it that way, but I noticed it in his recent 2-shot campaign.
I'll add my 2 cents. Just kind of my main takeaways, because covering every thought would take a while and I'm wiped this evening.
No shield spell: I would not mind this house rule, but it would definitely affect some of my build choices. My Hexoquence Bard concept, that I have not yet played, would be out. But I have plenty of other build ideas that I'm looking forward to playing.
Limiting armor from spellcasters: I do like that this sets the flavor to old school D&D. If you're a Wizard; for example, wizard's robes and such (and there's still mage armor). Also Treantmonk openly admits he's very spell happy, and he sees spells as the most powerful tool in D&D. As such he's forcing players to accept the downside that a single class wizard, or sorcerer, etc. is given to compensate for their powerful spells.
(-5 +10). I'm neutral to the previous house rules, but I actually like this one. Worth noting it does not apply to a bonus action. For optmizers GWM and SS are *must have* feats. You can still take them to make the -5 +10 also apply to bonus action attacks ), and get all the other benefits. But now other weapon options and (my favorite part) other feats become more appealing. Too powerful a buff? From Treantmonk's this is bringing martial classes up a knotch, closer to those powerful spell casters. I haven't played enough in mid-high tier to know if I agree with his bias toward magic. But reading the mid-high level spell list, dam spell casters can do some really powerful things.
Also wondering about how he deals with Mountain Dwarves, Lizardmen, Draconic Sorcerers, Tortles, Loxodons, Elven Chain, Robes of the Archmagi, and so on.
Well with the exception of the Mountain Dwarves, I think those all result in a different calculation of AC (race wise), and the armors are just exceptions he has to deal with.
Snark wise; they never come up because they are suboptimal for random reason :)
They are suboptimal in normal games. But if you strip out Shield & any armor (and especially if he lets you assign your +2 & +1 where you like), that obviously increases the value of AC from other sources. And all your Wizards are now Bladesingers. All your Bards are Sword/Valor.
Final comments: Trying to out-maneuver power gamers is pointless, they'll just find the new optimal pick. Better to roll with them, because PCs aren't the only smart people in your game world. Other people would have figured out what the players have, and do same thing and/or have counters for them. Treantmonk's world should have numerous opponents that are armored mages casting spells that require saves, ability checks or punish people for wearing armor, since that is the best to gain power & stop other powerful people.
He explains in the video that armor via race proficiency is also out, but that allowing it isn't really an issue since shield proficiency is never included. He does not rule out natural armor.
#1: A hard no. Shield IMHO is necessary for full-casters at the very least. At best I'd increase the level of the shield spell from 1 to 3, so it's not worth it for martials to multiclass dip just for Shield spell access - that, and/or make it so the +5 overlaps with rather than stacks with AC from already existing shield (and/or armor?).
#2: A hard no. One point of a full caster taking a multiclass dip is to obtain armor and/or shield proficiency as well as weapon proficiency; specifically so they can have a proper AC at the same time as they are being a caster. "I" have a bard with 1 level of life cleric using a breastplate and shield for an 18 AC, and would not want to be told I can't cast unless I'm in leather armor and shieldless; I don't want to be railroaded into having use prescious spells known/slots for mage armor/shield spell rather than the utility spells I have taken already. I'm looking to make it a mithral breastplate, which means it wont even ruin my costume.
#3: Perhaps... I don't necessarily have any objections to this one anyway as it frees up two feat slots, and there are already too many more feats than there are available slots for which to enjoy them.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Right, but he didn't say what Mountain Dwarves get in return (or I missed it). Or does he just straight nerf them?
Straight nerf.
Yeah treatmonk probably should of compensated a tiny bit for armor proficiencies (both in multiclassing and in races). Removing the armor feats as well was a equally bad call.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
He does say if someone wants to modify it to allow racial armor proficiency, that would still be fine.
I think people need to understand his reasons and intentions. He is not saying the Shield spell, nor casters dipping classes for armor/shields breaks the game. He has even done build demos where he does this himself. He's making full casters more like classical full casters, a robe wearing glass cannon that needs to use abilities (like misty step) and tactics to avoid damage. And also he is very biased toward spells, meaning he loves them and he considers Wizards and Sorcerers to be the most powerful class in the game. In his mind he's bringing the power level of full casters and martial classes closer together. And even the full caster classes closer together. He considers Clerics to have weaker spells than Wizards and Sorcerers. But Clerics get armor and shields, so that compensates. Now it's actually meaningful compensation instead of the Sorcerer just being able to take 1 level of Hexblade.
I interpret his intentions as just an alternate, interesting set of guidelines to play with. Not, "OMG this is OP let's kill it."