One D&D UA 9/29/22 - Expert Classes

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from ECMO3 >>

 Shield (3  times)

 
Shield is a slot gobbler. That’s why I’m not a huge fan of it on anything but an 18th level Wizard. Same thing with misty step, I love to have it but hate to use it. They’re emergency glass spells, best to not become too reliant on them.

 I dunno, I really like Shield. The amount of damage it can save you from high-powered attacks is insane, and a +5 boost to AC — even for just one round - can make a massive difference. Personally, I think a 1st level spell slot is a small price to pay to use that spell.

That being said, I agree with you about Misty Step; if you use it on your turn, you can’t cast another “leveled” spell, and even if you could, a 30 feet teleport doesn’t really feel worth a 2nd level spell slot:)

Shield usually prevents at least one hit when you use it (often more) and that also means it often prevents a concentration check from that hit.

I don't use misty step a lot, but when you need it, you need it and it is awesome.  Like swallowed by a purple worm for example and need it to get out of there - action look through your familiar's eyes, bonus action to misty step out of there.

Another favorite move of mine is to misty step and grapple a flying enemy if he is my size, or grab on to him so I can attack him in melee if he is smaller.  Some times this fails spectacularly though, I fail the grapple check and plummet to the ground taking damage.

Quote from Wi1dBi11 >>

Staff of defense : +1 AC, 10 charges, mage armor - 1 chi, shield - 2 chugs

The problem with staff of defense is you need to use an action to cast shield from it, which makes it extremely situational.  The +1 bonus to AC and free mage armor is nice though.

Quote from Stegodorkus >>

Shield can be very useful at low levels too. The monster's don't have a very high attack bonus, so it's more likely to make a difference. And cantrips are just as good as any martial with a bow. 

 Cantrips at 1st level do substantially less damage than martial with a bow. 

Firebolt is an average 5.75 damage on a hit.  With a 16 dex a longbow is 7.725.

Quote from ECMO3 >>

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

 You named two of them. Lucky will help you in more fights/situations per day. Elven Accuracy is just mechanically far better because it’s not limited by spell slots. The one free casting of hex is just that once. In one battle you have used a free casting of hex and a casting of hunters mark. If your DM is kind you will back to back battles within an hour so you don’t have to recast, but if the party wants to rest or too much time passes  you lose both HM and Hex. So you if you haven’t haven’t cast any other spells you could HM, Hex once more at 4th level using both your remaining spell slots. 
Charger as it’s currently written in the UA is also better. You get an additional 1d8 damage that doesn’t need a bonus action or spell slot.

 

Hex lasts an hour, so it is more than one fight unless you lose concentration.

 
As Ain_Undos wrote in that post you quoted, only if your DM is kind enough to drop another fight in front of you within that hour, and only if the party doesn’t short rest.

Quote from ECMO3 >>

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from ECMO3 >>

 Shield (3  times)

 
Shield is a slot gobbler. That’s why I’m not a huge fan of it on anything but an 18th level Wizard. Same thing with misty step, I love to have it but hate to use it. They’re emergency glass spells, best to not become too reliant on them.

 I dunno, I really like Shield. The amount of damage it can save you from high-powered attacks is insane, and a +5 boost to AC — even for just one round - can make a massive difference. Personally, I think a 1st level spell slot is a small price to pay to use that spell.

That being said, I agree with you about Misty Step; if you use it on your turn, you can’t cast another “leveled” spell, and even if you could, a 30 feet teleport doesn’t really feel worth a 2nd level spell slot:)

 

Shield usually prevents at least one hit when you use it (often more) and that also means it often prevents a concentration check from that hit.

As I stated, shield has its uses, I just don’t like to become reliant on it.

Quote from ECMO3 >>

Quote from Stegodorkus >>

Shield can be very useful at low levels too. The monster's don't have a very high attack bonus, so it's more likely to make a difference. And cantrips are just as good as any martial with a bow. 

 Cantrips at 1st level do substantially less damage than martial with a bow. 

Firebolt is an average 5.75 damage on a hit.  With a 16 dex a longbow is 7.725.

 

 This, in fact, holds up for casters before level 5 as well. If you can use a light cross bow your weapon attack will do more damage than a cantrip. It only changes at level 5. This is why I personally usually do not pick up an attack cantrip without a rider on my casters until level 4 and just use their starting weapons for damage and better utility cantrips.

Quote from ECMO3 >>

Quote from Stegodorkus >>

Shield can be very useful at low levels too. The monster's don't have a very high attack bonus, so it's more likely to make a difference. And cantrips are almost as good as any martial with a bow. 

 Cantrips at 1st level do substantially less damage than martial with a bow. 

Firebolt is an average 5.75 damage on a hit.  With a 16 dex a longbow is 7.725.

 

Okay, fine, I fixed it. 

I don't know if 2 point is substantial, but I should have said they're close. They both get +5 to hit usually. One does 1d8+3 and the other 1d10. Longbows are more consistent. Their max damage is 1 point away from each other. Firebolt still holds its own against a lot of 1st level spells. And a lot of utility spells are rituals. That's why both cantrips and rituals make the 5e wizard feel so much more competent than the 1e version.  In old games you would use your magic missile then hide the rest of the day.

Shield is a good spell at any level.  Of course you always play it safe as a wizard and try to avoid damage when you can. But when you can't, Shield means the the difference between holding concentration and firebolting, or dying a lot of the time.  When one character falls, you take another character out of the fight to heal them. And the action economy can go so badly against you that I've seen TPKs from this kind of spiral at low levels.

I just meant I'd rather have my wizard alive and doing 1d10 damage than the alternative. 

Quote from Aquilontune >>

Quote from ECMO3 >>

Quote from Stegodorkus >>

Shield can be very useful at low levels too. The monster's don't have a very high attack bonus, so it's more likely to make a difference. And cantrips are just as good as any martial with a bow. 

 Cantrips at 1st level do substantially less damage than martial with a bow. 

Firebolt is an average 5.75 damage on a hit.  With a 16 dex a longbow is 7.725.

 

 This, in fact, holds up for casters before level 5 as well. If you can use a light cross bow your weapon attack will do more damage than a cantrip. It only changes at level 5. This is why I personally usually do not pick up an attack cantrip without a rider on my casters until level 4 and just use their starting weapons for damage and better utility cantrips.

 Good point.  A dead wizard can't use a crossbow either.

Edit: I'm sorry, after reading that back it sounded a lot more snarky than I meant it to. Internet tone issues.

I did mean it was a good point. Everyone has made some fair points.

I was just adding that it can frequently be better for a wizard to cast Shield and blow the spell slot. They have very low HP. One big attack could mean death saves for them at any level. If you don't use the spell slot, it might mean dropping unconscious, losing concentration, losing a turn, and wasting your healers spell slot and turn instead. 

Sorry again! 

Part of it too may depend on your stats. If you rolled for stats and say, have an 18 in INT and a 14 in DEX, maybe the better chance to hit with that firebolt is worth it depending on the ac of what you're fighting.

I largely agree with Steg's point. Sure a wizard will try and play it safe. (Unless they're say, a bladesinger in their bladesong at the moment etc) but playing it safe doesn't mean you're always actually BE safe. 

On a class with less spells to pick early on I might be harder pressed to take shield, but for wizard it's a spell I'd be hard pressed not to take. Then again the DM I've played with in most of my time as a player tends to favor fewer but more lethal encounters and enemies. So that might overly inflate just how life saving shield can be for me compared to the average table. 

Quote from Nyr_Ventus >>

Part of it too may depend on your stats. If you rolled for stats and say, have an 18 in INT and a 14 in DEX, maybe the better chance to hit with that firebolt is worth it depending on the ac of what you're fighting.

I largely agree with Steg's point. Sure a wizard will try and play it safe. (Unless they're say, a bladesinger in their bladesong at the moment etc) but playing it safe doesn't mean you're always actually BE safe. 

On a class with less spells to pick early on I might be harder pressed to take shield, but for wizard it's a spell I'd be hard pressed not to take. Then again the DM I've played with in most of my time as a player tends to favor fewer but more lethal encounters and enemies. So that might overly inflate just how life saving shield can be for me compared to the average table. 

I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e, there is very little mechanical stickiness. You can stay back and use cover but that pretty much works because the DM is leaning into the tropes of the fighter holding the line. The same way when fighting the lich with his undead minions the party might run past the minions to stomp the lich, the enemies can do the same to the dude tossing fireballs in the back row. They can focus fire on a player just like the players focus fire on enemies. In a single fight its pretty easy for a wizard to burn through multiple shield and misty step spells if the DM is going after the wizard even with non hard encounters. Finding the balance of going after the wizard enough they have to use resources and keeping on the line so the fighter types fulfill the role of holding the line and protecting the other characters is a trick.  Which is to say I wish there was more mechanical stickiness in the game, I think it helps the fighter types when they know the reason the monsters are still there and pounding on them is because they forced the issue with their abilities and not just because the DM is choosing to.

And with as a 1d&d thread think about how it can work out without mechanical stickiness now. A group of orcs attack, the one with highest initiative take a AoO or maybe can get to the back line without it, one attack is a grapple and then the orc pulls the wizard out of cover. Before it would be a athletics/acrobatics battle, maybe 50/50 odds depending on builds. Now its an attack roll, shield is probably coming in handy here.(which I think feels odd for the spell to work vs a grapple but oh well)If the orc hits your cover is gone and again shield probably is coming in handy. If grappled misty step is also probably coming in handy, but hey maybe you just accept the grapple as you want to cast a leveled spell.

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e

 At low level the main reason to not do so is because there's often a higher priority target (in tier 1 rogues and monks tend towards the optimal combination of 'high damage' and 'easy to kill').

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from Nyr_Ventus >>

Part of it too may depend on your stats. If you rolled for stats and say, have an 18 in INT and a 14 in DEX, maybe the better chance to hit with that firebolt is worth it depending on the ac of what you're fighting.

I largely agree with Steg's point. Sure a wizard will try and play it safe. (Unless they're say, a bladesinger in their bladesong at the moment etc) but playing it safe doesn't mean you're always actually BE safe. 

On a class with less spells to pick early on I might be harder pressed to take shield, but for wizard it's a spell I'd be hard pressed not to take. Then again the DM I've played with in most of my time as a player tends to favor fewer but more lethal encounters and enemies. So that might overly inflate just how life saving shield can be for me compared to the average table. 

 

I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e, there is very little mechanical stickiness. You can stay back and use cover but that pretty much works because the DM is leaning into the tropes of the fighter holding the line. The same way when fighting the lich with his undead minions the party might run past the minions to stomp the lich, the enemies can do the same to the dude tossing fireballs in the back row. They can focus fire on a player just like the players focus fire on enemies. In a single fight its pretty easy for a wizard to burn through multiple shield and misty step spells if the DM is going after the wizard even with non hard encounters. Finding the balance of going after the wizard enough they have to use resources and keeping on the line so the fighter types fulfill the role of holding the line and protecting the other characters is a trick.  Which is to say I wish there was more mechanical stickiness in the game, I think it helps the fighter types when they know the reason the monsters are still there and pounding on them is because they forced the issue with their abilities and not just because the DM is choosing to.

And with as a 1d&d thread think about how it can work out without mechanical stickiness now. A group of orcs attack, the one with highest initiative take a AoO or maybe can get to the back line without it, one attack is a grapple and then the orc pulls the wizard out of cover. Before it would be a athletics/acrobatics battle, maybe 50/50 odds depending on builds. Now its an attack roll, shield is probably coming in handy here.(which I think feels odd for the spell to work vs a grapple but oh well)If the orc hits your cover is gone and again shield probably is coming in handy. If grappled misty step is also probably coming in handy, but hey maybe you just accept the grapple as you want to cast a leveled spell.

 Shield working to stop a grapple makes more sense. If I shoot an arrow you can stop it with a magical force field. If I swing a sword you can stop it. If I punch you can stop it. If I reach out with an open hand to grab you, then you can’t stop it. Why not? The new version makes more sense. I can’t grab you if I can’t reach you. If I beat your AC I either reach around or through your shield spell and grab you. If I don’t beat it my hand stops before I reach you.

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from Nyr_Ventus >>

Part of it too may depend on your stats. If you rolled for stats and say, have an 18 in INT and a 14 in DEX, maybe the better chance to hit with that firebolt is worth it depending on the ac of what you're fighting.

I largely agree with Steg's point. Sure a wizard will try and play it safe. (Unless they're say, a bladesinger in their bladesong at the moment etc) but playing it safe doesn't mean you're always actually BE safe. 

On a class with less spells to pick early on I might be harder pressed to take shield, but for wizard it's a spell I'd be hard pressed not to take. Then again the DM I've played with in most of my time as a player tends to favor fewer but more lethal encounters and enemies. So that might overly inflate just how life saving shield can be for me compared to the average table. 

 

I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e, there is very little mechanical stickiness. You can stay back and use cover but that pretty much works because the DM is leaning into the tropes of the fighter holding the line. The same way when fighting the lich with his undead minions the party might run past the minions to stomp the lich, the enemies can do the same to the dude tossing fireballs in the back row. They can focus fire on a player just like the players focus fire on enemies. In a single fight its pretty easy for a wizard to burn through multiple shield and misty step spells if the DM is going after the wizard even with non hard encounters. Finding the balance of going after the wizard enough they have to use resources and keeping on the line so the fighter types fulfill the role of holding the line and protecting the other characters is a trick.  Which is to say I wish there was more mechanical stickiness in the game, I think it helps the fighter types when they know the reason the monsters are still there and pounding on them is because they forced the issue with their abilities and not just because the DM is choosing to.

And with as a 1d&d thread think about how it can work out without mechanical stickiness now. A group of orcs attack, the one with highest initiative take a AoO or maybe can get to the back line without it, one attack is a grapple and then the orc pulls the wizard out of cover. Before it would be a athletics/acrobatics battle, maybe 50/50 odds depending on builds. Now its an attack roll, shield is probably coming in handy here.(which I think feels odd for the spell to work vs a grapple but oh well)If the orc hits your cover is gone and again shield probably is coming in handy. If grappled misty step is also probably coming in handy, but hey maybe you just accept the grapple as you want to cast a leveled spell.

 Shield working to stop a grapple makes more sense. If I shoot an arrow you can stop it with a magical force field. If I swing a sword you can stop it. If I punch you can stop it. If I reach out with an open hand to grab you, then you can’t stop it. Why not? The new version makes more sense. I can’t grab you if I can’t reach you. If I beat your AC I either reach around or through your shield spell and grab you. If I don’t beat it my hand stops before I reach you.

 I agree, why would shield be able to block a punch or kick, but not a grab?

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from Nyr_Ventus >>

Part of it too may depend on your stats. If you rolled for stats and say, have an 18 in INT and a 14 in DEX, maybe the better chance to hit with that firebolt is worth it depending on the ac of what you're fighting.

I largely agree with Steg's point. Sure a wizard will try and play it safe. (Unless they're say, a bladesinger in their bladesong at the moment etc) but playing it safe doesn't mean you're always actually BE safe. 

On a class with less spells to pick early on I might be harder pressed to take shield, but for wizard it's a spell I'd be hard pressed not to take. Then again the DM I've played with in most of my time as a player tends to favor fewer but more lethal encounters and enemies. So that might overly inflate just how life saving shield can be for me compared to the average table. 

 

I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e, there is very little mechanical stickiness. You can stay back and use cover but that pretty much works because the DM is leaning into the tropes of the fighter holding the line. The same way when fighting the lich with his undead minions the party might run past the minions to stomp the lich, the enemies can do the same to the dude tossing fireballs in the back row. They can focus fire on a player just like the players focus fire on enemies. In a single fight its pretty easy for a wizard to burn through multiple shield and misty step spells if the DM is going after the wizard even with non hard encounters. Finding the balance of going after the wizard enough they have to use resources and keeping on the line so the fighter types fulfill the role of holding the line and protecting the other characters is a trick.  Which is to say I wish there was more mechanical stickiness in the game, I think it helps the fighter types when they know the reason the monsters are still there and pounding on them is because they forced the issue with their abilities and not just because the DM is choosing to.

And with as a 1d&d thread think about how it can work out without mechanical stickiness now. A group of orcs attack, the one with highest initiative take a AoO or maybe can get to the back line without it, one attack is a grapple and then the orc pulls the wizard out of cover. Before it would be a athletics/acrobatics battle, maybe 50/50 odds depending on builds. Now its an attack roll, shield is probably coming in handy here.(which I think feels odd for the spell to work vs a grapple but oh well)If the orc hits your cover is gone and again shield probably is coming in handy. If grappled misty step is also probably coming in handy, but hey maybe you just accept the grapple as you want to cast a leveled spell.

 Shield working to stop a grapple makes more sense. If I shoot an arrow you can stop it with a magical force field. If I swing a sword you can stop it. If I punch you can stop it. If I reach out with an open hand to grab you, then you can’t stop it. Why not? The new version makes more sense. I can’t grab you if I can’t reach you. If I beat your AC I either reach around or through your shield spell and grab you. If I don’t beat it my hand stops before I reach you.

Because physical armor in itself seems like a weird defense against a grab. I get its abstract but sometimes a layer of complexity like 3es touch AC just makes more sense.

Quote from Ain_Undos >>

Shield working to stop a grapple makes more sense.

 AC working to stop a grapple doesn't; it should probably just be a save, and if you want spells like shield to help, have them give a save bonus.

Yeah this was probably the most disappointing parts for one of my players during the first playtest I ran. His barbarian failed a grapple roll he should have easily made because the skeleton had armor on. It didn't make sense and wasn't satisfying.  He just wanted to body slam the last one of them to finish the fight. I let him do it anyway because the roll would have succeed in the current rules, and I quickly decided something had to change. I don't want to overcomplicate things either, but this version kind of sucks. 

Quote from Stegodorkus >>

Yeah this was probably the most disappointing parts for one of my players during the first playtest I ran. His barbarian failed a grapple roll he should have easily made because the skeleton had armor on. It didn't make sense and wasn't satisfying.  He just wanted to body slam the last one of them to finish the fight. I let him do it anyway because the roll would have succeed in the current rules, and I quickly decided something had to change. I don't want to overcomplicate things either, but this version kind of sucks. 

 I hear you.  I wish there was some middle ground between the 5E "your armor class is your armor class" and having 5 or 6 circumstantial armor classes like in 3.0/3.5.

Quote from Stegodorkus >>

Yeah this was probably the most disappointing parts for one of my players during the first playtest I ran. His barbarian failed a grapple roll he should have easily made because the skeleton had armor on. It didn't make sense and wasn't satisfying.  He just wanted to body slam the last one of them to finish the fight. I let him do it anyway because the roll would have succeed in the current rules, and I quickly decided something had to change. I don't want to overcomplicate things either, but this version kind of sucks. 

It goes the other way as well. I had a 8 strength wizard grapple a ogre because even with the penalty to hit with his crap strength he could reasonably hit a low AC giant type. In theory he could have pulled it off in 5e but he would both have to roll good and the ogre bad. He was mounted so he was able to drag it a decent distance as well. Not sure if the slowed effect should apply to the steed but that is what I went with. Its a weird effect on all sides.

I mean, the best way is to probably make Grapples an Attack Roll vs Dex Save, but then we're back to contested rolls, which I've heard from these forums, that WoTC is trying to eliminate so...

You could maybe drop the attack roll entirely and make it a either str/dex save victims choice vs your str DC.  Not sure that would work or not. But I can say the more we tested this grapple mechanic the weirder the results. Its not inherently bad, like its quick and easy but it has some weird results.

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

You could maybe drop the attack roll entirely and make it a either str/dex save victims choice vs your str DC.

 That's pretty clearly the thing that's the most 'standard' mechanic other than AC.