When Tasha’s came out and there were additional spell lists, like for the aberrant mind or Clockwork sorcerer, they only added PHB spells so people were only dependent on the core rule books. This would still be an issue going forward so it doesn’t help with that.
Unified spell lists solve this issue. Instead of adding specific spells, they could just write, "you gain access to arcane spells of divination and enchantment schools". Any future spells that fit these criteria will be as good as added automatically.
When welding two weapons one that have the light you can make an additional attack with the light weapon in your off had when you take the attack action on your turn. This additional attack does not get the benefits of your damage modifiers. You can draw and stow both weapons at the same time. While wielding two weapons you can add +1 to your Ac. If any weapons have the thrown property, you can through them. The additional attack can be made against any enemy in range and does not need to be the same target as your first attack.
Three feats
Two Weapon fighting
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons
level 1 background feat. You dedication to fighting with two weapons has giving you greater skill then others at using two weapons. You can wield weapons that do not have the light property so long as they do not require to hands (unless they have the versatile property) one of the two weapons that you wield must be light and you can add your bonus damage to your additional attack. You may also make an additional attack whenever you take the extra attack action or attack of opportunity.
Dual Wielder
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, level 4
+1 to Strength/dex,
You can now us dual wield any two weapons that are not two-handed weapons (unless they have the versatile property). Your additional attacks do not trigger effects of the enemy for being attacked or taking damage. in addition, you gain two fighting tactics guarding blade and blitzing barrage.
Guarding Blade
As a bonus action you can gain choose to lose the benefit of the additional attack to gain an additional +3 to your ac till the start of your next turn and the ability to make a free attack against any enemy that makes an attack agent an ally that is within range of your weapon (only once till your next turn) and When hit or missed by a melee weapon attack from an attacker within 5ft of you, you can use your reaction to immediately make one melee weapon attack against the attacker.
Blitzing Barrage
As a bonus action you gain -1 to AC and the following benefits +2 on all attack made on your turn +2 to attack role for each missed attack, additional attack, or extra attack till your next turn and -1 to crit chance (if you miss three attacks your next attack would crit on a 20-17 if you would usually on crit on a 20). When you crit or deal damage to a single enemy with both of your weapons on your turn you can make another additional attack agents an enemy within range.
Perfected Two Weapon fighting
+1 to strength, dex, or con.
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, Dual Wielder feat, Two Weapon fighting feat, level 8
If you hit and enemy with both of your weapons you get the one following benefit based on the weapon damage after a failed save of 8 plus your proficiency plus your dex/strength. You can only apply one effect against a single enemy till your next turn. When you use Garding blade you gain additional uses equal to your proficiency when defending your allies and Blitzing Barrage now give all of your additional attacks advantage if they did not already have advantage.
Slashing (make single additional attack combining the damage dice of the two weapons)
Bludgeoning (knock the enemy prone) movement speed is reduced by half regardless of save.
Piercing (make single additional attack) till your next turn all attack and spell save are increased by half of the damage of the additional attack to the target.
any disrupting blow - enemy loses concentration and one of their attacks on their turn if they lack multi attack or extra attack then they cannot take the attack action on their nest turn.
Ranger changes
hunters mark will no longer be a spell but an ability that will scale through level.
the 6th level ability will be a class future at level 1 or 5 and will be replaced with fearing pray whenever you mark an enemy with hunter's mark or you deal them damage, they must succeed a d20 test or be frightened of you till the end of your next turn.
Changes to Roge
You can sneak attack as a reaction. and the level 13 ability applies to at least one other ally with in 5ft. Oh, and the ability to pick your opponent's pockets during combat will now also allow you to use an item as a bonus action even if it would usually require a single action.
Great weapon fighting
Revert to the -5 for +10 for all attacks. Allow it to work with all two-handed weapons again.
Before I rip into the problems I will say what I like. The Bard is is good imo. I have a maybe change for the College. The new feats are mostly fine.
College of Lore problem: It doesn’t feel like the 5e Lore Bard. Honestly that might be okay but I have a fix for that if we want to push it back into something more familiar.
6th Lvl Feature change- Songs of Lore- You may choose one Cantrip and one spell of 1st level or above from any spell list. That spell must be of a level you can prepapre with Bard spell slots. It is always prepared and doesn’t count against the number of spells you can prepare. You may change this cantrip and spell whenever you complete a long rest.
This feels more inline with 5e Bard, but we would be giving up an excellent 6th level feature in cunning inspiration.
Ranger problem: there is a lot to unpack. Doesn’t have the feel of a Ranger. Steps on the Rogues toes too much now. Hunter’s Mark is too strong early doesn’t really fulfill Favored Enemy for the entire game. Favored Foe is weak.
‘Favored Enemy- scales, 1st level grants HM always prepared and doesn’t count against spells prepared. 3rd level HM no longer requires concentration. 7th level you can use study and search actions as a bonus action against marked targets. You have advantage on the roll. 11th HM damage is a d8.17th HM damage is a d10
1st Lvl Expertise becomes Natural Explorer- You gain proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival skills. If you already have proficiency in the skill choose another Ranger skill to gain proficiency in. If you already have expertise in the skill choose any skill you have proficiency and gain expertise in that skill. You also gain proficiency in cartographer tools or navigators tools.
Foe Slayer- either make the damage static Wis mod increase that it is in 5e or Proficiency bonus to marked target.
This allows HM to not be too strong a lvl 1, and worth staying for all the perks beyond 3rd level. I originally thought steal hunters lore from the subclass and put it here for the 7th level HM boon for all rangers but saw an opportunity to work with the new codified search and study actions. Natural Explore instead of straight expertise because sadly I’m seeing if the mechanics don’t force you toward the flavor people will just optimize. Also the Ranger was feeling too Rogue like with open expertise.
Rogue problem: Can’t sneak attack on opportunity attacks or in special occasions on other people’s turns. Their expertise doesn’t feel special any more (partially fixed with Ranger change) Thief needs a little boost also.
Expertise- allow rogues to also choose tools for expertise from this list if they have proficiency in the tool- Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit, Jeweler’s tools, and Thieves tools
Sneak attack returns to once per turn when you attack with a finesse or ranged weapon.
Thief fast hands- return interact with an object as part of fast hands cunning action.
Movement problem- it’s clunky and I just don’t like it. Jump as an action is bot good and bad.
Any movement consumes all speed types up to your highest speed. So if you have 30 speed, 10 climb, 40 swim. You can’t walk 10ft to a wall then climb it with your climb speed because it’s already been used while walking. But you could climb a 10ft wall, walk 20ft to some water, and swim 10ft. Taking the Dash action gives you second block of movement that is subtracted from separately. So you could walk 20ft to a wall. Take the dash action. Climb 10ft up the wall. At this moment you have 2 blocks of movement to account for that are separate. One has 10ft speed or 20 swim remaining and the other has 20 speed or 30 walk remaining. Now I need to figure out how to say that plainly so it’s easily understood.
Jump becomes its own special action but can be used in place of an action, a bonus action or movement if you haven’t used any this turn. If used as a bonus action you only clear a distance equal to half the roll. You may only use Jump once per turn no matter if you replaced an action, bonus action or movement.
Feat problem- Crossbow expert is broken and Ritual Caster is bad.
Crossbow expert should return to its 5e version and a new feat introduced to handle two crossbows and sword and crossbow. Which is what the UA version does right now and not very well unless you are an artificer with repeating shot or Thri-keen. Otherwise once you fire you can’t get ammunition because your hands are full.
Ritual Caster drop quick ritual and return the book and ability to learn more rituals. Even if it means it’s limited it to 1 ritual when you first get the book and you have to seek out the others.
That’s all I got. I’m sure as everyone keeps playtesting and talking about this more problems will come up. Most can be fixed and I’m sure we will end up with a product we all will enjoy. Even if we don’t all get exactly what we want.
NO!! crossbow expert is on par with the great weapon master of 5e it should be untouched. If anything, they should keep it and revert pole arm master and sentinel to synergizing.
Main issue with Ranger Hunters mark should not be a spell. Their are monsters in dnd that are immune to spells of 5th level and bellow now your key future is useless. Bad design.
Compared to other classes (and the old rules), bard is way less useful until 7th level, and doesn't feel unique or interesting until 11th level (when most games have already ended). For a class that is basically designed to enable the rest of the party, this seems like a pretty big miss.
Rogue should be able to sneak attack once per-round with no other restrictions (resetting the ability at the start of their turn).
I have some other minor gripes, but those are the big ones.
In other words, you should say they should be able to use sneak attacks on reaction and attacks of opportunities.
Before I rip into the problems I will say what I like. The Bard is is good imo. I have a maybe change for the College. The new feats are mostly fine.
College of Lore problem: It doesn’t feel like the 5e Lore Bard. Honestly that might be okay but I have a fix for that if we want to push it back into something more familiar.
6th Lvl Feature change- Songs of Lore- You may choose one Cantrip and one spell of 1st level or above from any spell list. That spell must be of a level you can prepapre with Bard spell slots. It is always prepared and doesn’t count against the number of spells you can prepare. You may change this cantrip and spell whenever you complete a long rest.
This feels more inline with 5e Bard, but we would be giving up an excellent 6th level feature in cunning inspiration.
Ranger problem: there is a lot to unpack. Doesn’t have the feel of a Ranger. Steps on the Rogues toes too much now. Hunter’s Mark is too strong early doesn’t really fulfill Favored Enemy for the entire game. Favored Foe is weak.
‘Favored Enemy- scales, 1st level grants HM always prepared and doesn’t count against spells prepared. 3rd level HM no longer requires concentration. 7th level you can use study and search actions as a bonus action against marked targets. You have advantage on the roll. 11th HM damage is a d8.17th HM damage is a d10
1st Lvl Expertise becomes Natural Explorer- You gain proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival skills. If you already have proficiency in the skill choose another Ranger skill to gain proficiency in. If you already have expertise in the skill choose any skill you have proficiency and gain expertise in that skill. You also gain proficiency in cartographer tools or navigators tools.
Foe Slayer- either make the damage static Wis mod increase that it is in 5e or Proficiency bonus to marked target.
This allows HM to not be too strong a lvl 1, and worth staying for all the perks beyond 3rd level. I originally thought steal hunters lore from the subclass and put it here for the 7th level HM boon for all rangers but saw an opportunity to work with the new codified search and study actions. Natural Explore instead of straight expertise because sadly I’m seeing if the mechanics don’t force you toward the flavor people will just optimize. Also the Ranger was feeling too Rogue like with open expertise.
Rogue problem: Can’t sneak attack on opportunity attacks or in special occasions on other people’s turns. Their expertise doesn’t feel special any more (partially fixed with Ranger change) Thief needs a little boost also.
Expertise- allow rogues to also choose tools for expertise from this list if they have proficiency in the tool- Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit, Jeweler’s tools, and Thieves tools
Sneak attack returns to once per turn when you attack with a finesse or ranged weapon.
Thief fast hands- return interact with an object as part of fast hands cunning action.
Movement problem- it’s clunky and I just don’t like it. Jump as an action is bot good and bad.
Any movement consumes all speed types up to your highest speed. So if you have 30 speed, 10 climb, 40 swim. You can’t walk 10ft to a wall then climb it with your climb speed because it’s already been used while walking. But you could climb a 10ft wall, walk 20ft to some water, and swim 10ft. Taking the Dash action gives you second block of movement that is subtracted from separately. So you could walk 20ft to a wall. Take the dash action. Climb 10ft up the wall. At this moment you have 2 blocks of movement to account for that are separate. One has 10ft speed or 20 swim remaining and the other has 20 speed or 30 walk remaining. Now I need to figure out how to say that plainly so it’s easily understood.
Jump becomes its own special action but can be used in place of an action, a bonus action or movement if you haven’t used any this turn. If used as a bonus action you only clear a distance equal to half the roll. You may only use Jump once per turn no matter if you replaced an action, bonus action or movement.
Feat problem- Crossbow expert is broken and Ritual Caster is bad.
Crossbow expert should return to its 5e version and a new feat introduced to handle two crossbows and sword and crossbow. Which is what the UA version does right now and not very well unless you are an artificer with repeating shot or Thri-keen. Otherwise once you fire you can’t get ammunition because your hands are full.
Ritual Caster drop quick ritual and return the book and ability to learn more rituals. Even if it means it’s limited it to 1 ritual when you first get the book and you have to seek out the others.
That’s all I got. I’m sure as everyone keeps playtesting and talking about this more problems will come up. Most can be fixed and I’m sure we will end up with a product we all will enjoy. Even if we don’t all get exactly what we want.
NO!! crossbow expert is on par with the great weapon master of 5e it should be untouched. If anything, they should keep it and revert pole arm master and sentinel to synergizing.
Main issue with Ranger Hunters mark should not be a spell. Their are monsters in dnd that are immune to spells of 5th level and bellow now your key future is useless. Bad design.
That I would say is an issue with creature design rather than class design. Having creatures which have immunity that flat out invalidate a character's abilities in combat is bad design, Rakshasa for example, they are just a big feck you to all spell casters. They are CR13, so full casters only have a single 7th level spell slot, you get a single spell which the Rakshasa has advantage on any saving throws if you try anything that requires one. At least with say a Beholder, it has to maintain sight to stop you casting spells and it can't attack you with it's other eyes while maintaining that sight on you, so you're still doing something if you can't cast a spell, against a Rakshasa a spell caster does a single spell and then is pretty much useless, unless you can somehow affect the terrain, like burning a wooden bridge the Rakshasa might be standing on.
I am not against immunity in general, just only when it gets to a point where characters in combat are basically entirely invalidated. If a creature needs such immunity then there should be a way to disable or bypass it, such as say throwing silver dust or holy water on it, or that the immunity requires the creature's reaction. So if you have two casters it can only resist one of those spell casters. Or perhaps there is some type of puzzle the party is meant to do first to unlock some ancient relic that when held, ignores the effect of that creature's immunity. There is no decent reason for basically making a character completely useless in battle and it feels bad when it happens.
If it's because you yourself only took a longsword and greatsword when the creature is immune to slashing damage tho, that's on the player, since you could have also had a club, a hammer, a spear, etc, so single damage types like that, I am also okay with. Two may also be okay as long as the two aren't Piercing and Slashing (you invalidate rogues with both of those).
I'm actually fine with it as a monster design at least for spell casters who have such a huge tool kit. Going back to older editions when fighting a golem or whatever a mage would have to change tactics a bit. So the golem or Rakshasa is immune to spells, cool your friends aren't. Cast haste, cast fly etc. My only issue with immune to spell type creatures is I think they need to describe how they work more, if you cast wall of stone can a Rakshasa just walk right through it or is it stone and still stops them, heck can they see through it. As long as the number of creatures are limited so they are designed as special challenges for certain party members I consider it a plus.
I'm actually fine with it as a monster design at least for spell casters who have such a huge tool kit. Going back to older editions when fighting a golem or whatever a mage would have to change tactics a bit. So the golem or Rakshasa is immune to spells, cool your friends aren't. Cast haste, cast fly etc. My only issue with immune to spell type creatures is I think they need to describe how they work more, if you cast wall of stone can a Rakshasa just walk right through it or is it stone and still stops them, heck can they see through it. As long as the number of creatures are limited so they are designed as special challenges for certain party members I consider it a plus.
That might be true for Wizards, but what about sorcerers or even Warlocks..... sorcerers having less overall spells and generally being more blaster focused might be left with little utility and warlocks are down to a 1/day feature, what else they have is 5th level and their main thing is level 0, being eldritch blast. Bards, Clerics and Druids might still have a lot of party utility they can throw out but realistically sorcerer has very little and warlock even less.
I'm actually fine with it as a monster design at least for spell casters who have such a huge tool kit. Going back to older editions when fighting a golem or whatever a mage would have to change tactics a bit. So the golem or Rakshasa is immune to spells, cool your friends aren't. Cast haste, cast fly etc. My only issue with immune to spell type creatures is I think they need to describe how they work more, if you cast wall of stone can a Rakshasa just walk right through it or is it stone and still stops them, heck can they see through it. As long as the number of creatures are limited so they are designed as special challenges for certain party members I consider it a plus.
That might be true for Wizards, but what about sorcerers or even Warlocks..... sorcerers having less overall spells and generally being more blaster focused might be left with little utility and warlocks are down to a 1/day feature, what else they have is 5th level and their main thing is level 0, being eldritch blast. Bards, Clerics and Druids might still have a lot of party utility they can throw out but realistically sorcerer has very little and warlock even less.
I'd say in by the time you are facing Rakshasa a sorcerer should have a couple non blasty spells, and while yes its once a day features a lock will have at least 2, maybe 3 of them by the time they face them and gain should have some non direct attack options by then. A fight is sometimes harder for some people, flying creatures vs a strength based martial is a pain in the butt. I don't see this as different.
It's honestly okay to have some fights be harder for one class than another. I would say it makes the game better even. The game is meant for a party. Everyone should have strengths as well as weaknesses.
When you encounter a rust monster that can eat your fighter's weapons, or a rakshasa that ignores the wizard's spells, the party has to adapt. Characters who don't normally get to shine have their moment. You get creative with terrain and tactics. Maybe you run away! It keeps every combat from being the same cycle of skills over and over. It's a good thing.
And there are thousands of monsters to choose from. If one would completely ruin the whole game for all of your characters, you don't have to use it. But new challenges make the game more exciting.
I'm actually fine with it as a monster design at least for spell casters who have such a huge tool kit. Going back to older editions when fighting a golem or whatever a mage would have to change tactics a bit. So the golem or Rakshasa is immune to spells, cool your friends aren't. Cast haste, cast fly etc. My only issue with immune to spell type creatures is I think they need to describe how they work more, if you cast wall of stone can a Rakshasa just walk right through it or is it stone and still stops them, heck can they see through it. As long as the number of creatures are limited so they are designed as special challenges for certain party members I consider it a plus.
That might be true for Wizards, but what about sorcerers or even Warlocks..... sorcerers having less overall spells and generally being more blaster focused might be left with little utility and warlocks are down to a 1/day feature, what else they have is 5th level and their main thing is level 0, being eldritch blast. Bards, Clerics and Druids might still have a lot of party utility they can throw out but realistically sorcerer has very little and warlock even less.
I'd say in by the time you are facing Rakshasa a sorcerer should have a couple non blasty spells, and while yes its once a day features a lock will have at least 2, maybe 3 of them by the time they face them and gain should have some non direct attack options by then. A fight is sometimes harder for some people, flying creatures vs a strength based martial is a pain in the butt. I don't see this as different.
Warlock will only have 1 level 7 feature, the other is level 6 which Rakshasa are immune too, which is why I didn't bring it up. Warlock doesn't exactly have the best selection in those level 7 spells, either and the best ones are saves, which Rakshasa gets advantage on, like forcecage. So once warlock blows that one thing, they are basically left with nothing since Rakshasa ignore spells and magical effects.
It's honestly okay to have some fights be harder for one class than another. I would say it makes the game better even. The game is meant for a party. Everyone should have strengths as well as weaknesses.
When you encounter a rust monster that can eat your fighter's weapons, or a rakshasa that ignores the wizard's spells, the party has to adapt. Characters who don't normally get to shine have their moment. You get creative with terrain and tactics. Maybe you run away! It keeps every combat from being the same cycle of skills over and over. It's a good thing.
And there are thousands of monsters to choose from. If one would completely ruin the whole game for all of your characters, you don't have to use it. But new challenges make the game more exciting.
There is a difference between "harder" and "entirely invalidated", the point where a class is just sat there looking pretty. Which can happen with some creatures, such as Rakshasa.
Well, I guess if you have a Warlock in the party that built every skill, spell, and invocation into dealing magic spell damage only. One that has no weapons. No support spells. No useful skills to use the environment. No potions or magic items that could help. Then I guess in that case maybe the rakshasa isn't a monster you would want to use against the party.
Unless it is narratively interesting, like a challenge from their patron to test them. Or a running villain you want them to have to meet and then come back later better prepared to defeat. Or you set up a kind of weakness like you suggested, a plot device they can exploit. Maybe a gift from their patron that will open a vulnerability if they use it right. Then the encounter is even more fun as the party runs interference for the warlock to put the magic gem in the statue's eye or something.
Well, I guess if you have a Warlock in the party that built every skill, spell, and invocation into dealing magic spell damage only. One that has no weapons. No support spells. No useful skills to use the environment. No potions or magic items that could help. Then I guess in that case maybe the rakshasa isn't a monster you would want to use against the party.
Unless it is narratively interesting, like a challenge from their patron to test them. Or a running villain you want them to have to meet and then come back later better prepared to defeat. Or you set up a kind of weakness like you suggested, a plot device they can exploit. Maybe a gift from their patron that will open a vulnerability if they use it right. Then the encounter is even more fun as the party runs interference for the warlock to put the magic gem in the statue's eye or something.
Unless you're a celestial or hexblade, you're probably not really having any of those as warlocks generally don't get support spells. As a celestial you can heal as a hexblade you have a weapon at least, but all others, the only spell you see a lot in sub classes that might look helpful is Great Invisibility, but Rakshasa have True Seeing as spell... but I think we both agree, DMs can most definitely use their own ways to fix it. I just worry about people who follow modules and don't perceive the issue until they hit the creature, however that is going back to DMing skill. I think the stat blocks should at least hint or give suggestions on how to avoid those situations in the first place, within the creature's design. More so it allows an expansion on that creature's lore.
I'm actually fine with it as a monster design at least for spell casters who have such a huge tool kit. Going back to older editions when fighting a golem or whatever a mage would have to change tactics a bit. So the golem or Rakshasa is immune to spells, cool your friends aren't. Cast haste, cast fly etc. My only issue with immune to spell type creatures is I think they need to describe how they work more, if you cast wall of stone can a Rakshasa just walk right through it or is it stone and still stops them, heck can they see through it. As long as the number of creatures are limited so they are designed as special challenges for certain party members I consider it a plus.
That might be true for Wizards, but what about sorcerers or even Warlocks..... sorcerers having less overall spells and generally being more blaster focused might be left with little utility and warlocks are down to a 1/day feature, what else they have is 5th level and their main thing is level 0, being eldritch blast. Bards, Clerics and Druids might still have a lot of party utility they can throw out but realistically sorcerer has very little and warlock even less.
I'd say in by the time you are facing Rakshasa a sorcerer should have a couple non blasty spells, and while yes its once a day features a lock will have at least 2, maybe 3 of them by the time they face them and gain should have some non direct attack options by then. A fight is sometimes harder for some people, flying creatures vs a strength based martial is a pain in the butt. I don't see this as different.
Warlock will only have 1 level 7 feature, the other is level 6 which Rakshasa are immune too, which is why I didn't bring it up. Warlock doesn't exactly have the best selection in those level 7 spells, either and the best ones are saves, which Rakshasa gets advantage on, like forcecage. So once warlock blows that one thing, they are basically left with nothing since Rakshasa ignore spells and magical effects.
Well if its a level 13 warlock they have force cage. Its the only 7th level option worth a damn for them and it stops a Rakshasa dead. And again they use their other spells at that point. And warlocks at that level should have them. Their eldritch blast or hexblade attacks cover their basic damage, they will have a few control spells, maybe 1-2 big boom with synaptic static and sickening radiance, the rest should be more niche. With their base damage covered through a cantrip they are very free to take a lot of niche spells admittedly their support list is pretty sparse but invisibility/fly will help in a fight. Maybe they wont have anything to do the first time they deal with something like this, but when they level up they can add an option. And some spells due to the lack of clarity I have no idea how they pan out. If they have summon undead, does the undeads attack work on them its a spell but its also a creature. Wall of stone, can the Rakshasa ignore that.
Even if they ignore a summons attacks, I think a warlock will usually add more to a fight vs a Rakshasa than a strength fighter will vs ranged flying enemies as they should have at least one support spell and that will do more than missing constantly. Heck if they just know remove curse they might be more valuable to the party for that fight than anyone else is. But a single cast of invisibility giving the whole party advantage on their first attack is useful. They only have a AC 16 and 110 HP its only going to be a couple rounds at that level so a one round advantage is solid.
Well if its a level 13 warlock they have force cage. Its the only 7th level option worth a damn for them and it stops a Rakshasa dead. And again they use their other spells at that point. And warlocks at that level should have them. Their eldritch blast or hexblade attacks cover their basic damage, they will have a few control spells, maybe 1-2 big boom with synaptic static and sickening radiance, the rest should be more niche. With their base damage covered through a cantrip they are very free to take a lot of niche spells admittedly their support list is pretty sparse but invisibility/fly will help in a fight. Maybe they wont have anything to do the first time they deal with something like this, but when they level up they can add an option. And some spells due to the lack of clarity I have no idea how they pan out. If they have summon undead, does the undeads attack work on them its a spell but its also a creature. Wall of stone, can the Rakshasa ignore that.
Even if they ignore a summons attacks, I think a warlock will usually add more to a fight vs a Rakshasa than a strength fighter will vs ranged flying enemies as they should have at least one support spell and that will do more than missing constantly. Heck if they just know remove curse they might be more valuable to the party for that fight than anyone else is. But a single cast of invisibility giving the whole party advantage on their first attack is useful. They only have a AC 16 and 110 HP its only going to be a couple rounds at that level so a one round advantage is solid.
I don't think arguing over Rakshasa anymore is going to be greatly productive but I already mentioned forcecage and how Rakshasa still gets advantage against it. Rakshasa usually do have minions so that is where you can make a difference in a normal encounter, but Rakshasa alone is a creature which itself can use most of those same tactics you mention, including going invisible, using the fly spell etc. But yes, a fighter using a greatsword and action surge can potentially end a Rakshasa in a single turn, altho not that likely still possible. The point was more about how Warlock would get invalidated. Invisibility is concentration, so you can give a single target advantage... so the same as a find familiar, which thankfully does work on a Rakshasa since find familiar is a spell of instantaneous duration, so for 6th level a warlock that choose create undead could be useful, tho I don't think anybody should be choosing such a spell just encase they end out fighting against a single creature; unless that creature is specifically important to their backstory.
But the original point was not trying to figure out how if you built your character differently you might not be useless in a specific encounter, but instead having to be careful about literally invalidating a character in certain battles, which is a much greater issue. That there should be care taken in that, another example is a werewolf, it would be shitty to toss one out against a party that literally didn't know there was a werewolf coming up, unless it's part of setup (like you have some paladins/clerics chasing it down which forces it to flee kinda of thing), since it's CR3 most characters won't have a magic weapon yet and most won't have silvered their weapon since there isn't much else at CR3 really demanding anything like that, but a werewolf is an example of what else I mean, in that if you give the set-up then the party knows to get their weapons silvered to fight a werewolf, the immunity is conditional in such a way that there is something active the party can do to bypass it.
Well, I guess if you have a Warlock in the party that built every skill, spell, and invocation into dealing magic spell damage only. One that has no weapons. No support spells. No useful skills to use the environment. No potions or magic items that could help. Then I guess in that case maybe the rakshasa isn't a monster you would want to use against the party.
Unless it is narratively interesting, like a challenge from their patron to test them. Or a running villain you want them to have to meet and then come back later better prepared to defeat. Or you set up a kind of weakness like you suggested, a plot device they can exploit. Maybe a gift from their patron that will open a vulnerability if they use it right. Then the encounter is even more fun as the party runs interference for the warlock to put the magic gem in the statue's eye or something.
Unless you're a celestial or hexblade, you're probably not really having any of those as warlocks generally don't get support spells. As a celestial you can heal as a hexblade you have a weapon at least, but all others, the only spell you see a lot in sub classes that might look helpful is Great Invisibility, but Rakshasa have True Seeing as spell... but I think we both agree, DMs can most definitely use their own ways to fix it. I just worry about people who follow modules and don't perceive the issue until they hit the creature, however that is going back to DMing skill. I think the stat blocks should at least hint or give suggestions on how to avoid those situations in the first place, within the creature's design. More so it allows an expansion on that creature's lore.
Yeah, that's a fair point. I think 5e is a very good edition of DnD. But they have consistently been pretty bad at teaching DMs how to actually... DM. I wish every monster came with suggestions on how to run them.
Well if its a level 13 warlock they have force cage. Its the only 7th level option worth a damn for them and it stops a Rakshasa dead. And again they use their other spells at that point. And warlocks at that level should have them. Their eldritch blast or hexblade attacks cover their basic damage, they will have a few control spells, maybe 1-2 big boom with synaptic static and sickening radiance, the rest should be more niche. With their base damage covered through a cantrip they are very free to take a lot of niche spells admittedly their support list is pretty sparse but invisibility/fly will help in a fight. Maybe they wont have anything to do the first time they deal with something like this, but when they level up they can add an option. And some spells due to the lack of clarity I have no idea how they pan out. If they have summon undead, does the undeads attack work on them its a spell but its also a creature. Wall of stone, can the Rakshasa ignore that.
Even if they ignore a summons attacks, I think a warlock will usually add more to a fight vs a Rakshasa than a strength fighter will vs ranged flying enemies as they should have at least one support spell and that will do more than missing constantly. Heck if they just know remove curse they might be more valuable to the party for that fight than anyone else is. But a single cast of invisibility giving the whole party advantage on their first attack is useful. They only have a AC 16 and 110 HP its only going to be a couple rounds at that level so a one round advantage is solid.
I don't think arguing over Rakshasa anymore is going to be greatly productive but I already mentioned forcecage and how Rakshasa still gets advantage against it. Rakshasa usually do have minions so that is where you can make a difference in a normal encounter, but Rakshasa alone is a creature which itself can use most of those same tactics you mention, including going invisible, using the fly spell etc. But yes, a fighter using a greatsword and action surge can potentially end a Rakshasa in a single turn, altho not that likely still possible. The point was more about how Warlock would get invalidated. Invisibility is concentration, so you can give a single target advantage... so the same as a find familiar, which thankfully does work on a Rakshasa since find familiar is a spell of instantaneous duration, so for 6th level a warlock that choose create undead could be useful, tho I don't think anybody should be choosing such a spell just encase they end out fighting against a single creature; unless that creature is specifically important to their backstory.
Nitpik but Invisibility on most casters is one person, on a lock its 4 people at these levels. Sure every caster can do that, a lock just will. That is why its a useful buff for the lock whether its combat, or recon, its decently likely to be the whole party. Yeah the lock has just a couple options here and hopefully 1d&d will give them a better spell list, but its a really specific encounter and unless you are fighting them routinely as part of a campaign my point is a one off encounter where you face a enemy where you are "invalidated" isn't a big deal. As I said against a lot of enemy type martials can get similarly invalidated. I think since flight isn't labeled as immunity to melee we forget what it means. Similarly something like a fog cloud effect nullifies a rogues sneak attacks. As whether its canceled out by some sort of advantage or not they are still suffering from disadvantage and therefore can't sneak attack.(which is a weird rule i usually house rule out of), but its not labeled immunity to rogues so we don't think about it. For magic its almost always labeled immunity to magic. The werewolf as you mention its labeled immunity to all non magic/silvered weapons.
And for something like a werewolf, depends on encounter design but given the low level people might not know what to do. But I'm okay with it in theory, a fighting retreat as you are not prepared. The martials tanking it keeping it away from the casters who can actually do something. It would be bad vs an entire party of martials. I just think immunities and other effects which might invalidate a player for a fight or two is a value add. Get players to think outside of the box, research things, come back later when better prepared. Heck you can easily invalidate players with just terrain and tactics.
Personally I'd say in this realm for magic immunity the only problem i have is how widespread certain immunities are. Like immunity to charm effects is, or on the mundane side though its less common for PCs immunity to poison. Yeah spellcaster X has a ton of other options but if you were focusing on it as a lock, sorcerer or wizard your focus is nullified by like 1/3 of the enemies you will face which is annoying, and if you were playing a master poisoner it would suck how often enemies were just immune to your core build.
Can it go wrong with a new DM, sure, but there is nothing wrong with monsters that require more experience. But yes it would be nice if in the stat block it gave a red flag of some kind. This is powers not enemies but in hero games they had a coupe symbols for powers to watch out for ! meant her this may disrupt things more than you expect, a stop sign meant hey this changes the campaign. Which was nice for new GMs to know to maybe not let players take powers like those. So some kind of symbol next to the monsters name to let DMs know there is something special about running this monster with some text in a sidebar explaining the issue would be nice.
Well if its a level 13 warlock they have force cage. Its the only 7th level option worth a damn for them and it stops a Rakshasa dead. And again they use their other spells at that point. And warlocks at that level should have them. Their eldritch blast or hexblade attacks cover their basic damage, they will have a few control spells, maybe 1-2 big boom with synaptic static and sickening radiance, the rest should be more niche. With their base damage covered through a cantrip they are very free to take a lot of niche spells admittedly their support list is pretty sparse but invisibility/fly will help in a fight. Maybe they wont have anything to do the first time they deal with something like this, but when they level up they can add an option. And some spells due to the lack of clarity I have no idea how they pan out. If they have summon undead, does the undeads attack work on them its a spell but its also a creature. Wall of stone, can the Rakshasa ignore that.
Even if they ignore a summons attacks, I think a warlock will usually add more to a fight vs a Rakshasa than a strength fighter will vs ranged flying enemies as they should have at least one support spell and that will do more than missing constantly. Heck if they just know remove curse they might be more valuable to the party for that fight than anyone else is. But a single cast of invisibility giving the whole party advantage on their first attack is useful. They only have a AC 16 and 110 HP its only going to be a couple rounds at that level so a one round advantage is solid.
I don't think arguing over Rakshasa anymore is going to be greatly productive but I already mentioned forcecage and how Rakshasa still gets advantage against it. Rakshasa usually do have minions so that is where you can make a difference in a normal encounter, but Rakshasa alone is a creature which itself can use most of those same tactics you mention, including going invisible, using the fly spell etc. But yes, a fighter using a greatsword and action surge can potentially end a Rakshasa in a single turn, altho not that likely still possible. The point was more about how Warlock would get invalidated. Invisibility is concentration, so you can give a single target advantage... so the same as a find familiar, which thankfully does work on a Rakshasa since find familiar is a spell of instantaneous duration, so for 6th level a warlock that choose create undead could be useful, tho I don't think anybody should be choosing such a spell just encase they end out fighting against a single creature; unless that creature is specifically important to their backstory.
Nitpik but Invisibility on most casters is one person, on a lock its 4 people at these levels. Sure every caster can do that, a lock just will. That is why its a useful buff for the lock whether its combat, or recon, its decently likely to be the whole party. Yeah the lock has just a couple options here and hopefully 1d&d will give them a better spell list, but its a really specific encounter and unless you are fighting them routinely as part of a campaign my point is a one off encounter where you face a enemy where you are "invalidated" isn't a big deal. As I said against a lot of enemy type martials can get similarly invalidated. I think since flight isn't labeled as immunity to melee we forget what it means. Similarly something like a fog cloud effect nullifies a rogues sneak attacks. As whether its canceled out by some sort of advantage or not they are still suffering from disadvantage and therefore can't sneak attack.(which is a weird rule i usually house rule out of), but its not labeled immunity to rogues so we don't think about it. For magic its almost always labeled immunity to magic. The werewolf as you mention its labeled immunity to all non magic/silvered weapons.
And for something like a werewolf, depends on encounter design but given the low level people might not know what to do. But I'm okay with it in theory, a fighting retreat as you are not prepared. The martials tanking it keeping it away from the casters who can actually do something. It would be bad vs an entire party of martials. I just think immunities and other effects which might invalidate a player for a fight or two is a value add. Get players to think outside of the box, research things, come back later when better prepared. Heck you can easily invalidate players with just terrain and tactics.
Personally I'd say in this realm for magic immunity the only problem i have is how widespread certain immunities are. Like immunity to charm effects is, or on the mundane side though its less common for PCs immunity to poison. Yeah spellcaster X has a ton of other options but if you were focusing on it as a lock, sorcerer or wizard your focus is nullified by like 1/3 of the enemies you will face which is annoying, and if you were playing a master poisoner it would suck how often enemies were just immune to your core build.
Can it go wrong with a new DM, sure, but there is nothing wrong with monsters that require more experience. But yes it would be nice if in the stat block it gave a red flag of some kind. This is powers not enemies but in hero games they had a coupe symbols for powers to watch out for ! meant her this may disrupt things more than you expect, a stop sign meant hey this changes the campaign. Which was nice for new GMs to know to maybe not let players take powers like those. So some kind of symbol next to the monsters name to let DMs know there is something special about running this monster with some text in a sidebar explaining the issue would be nice.
Ya immunity to charm effects are the bane of my existence as my favorite classes are typically Bard and my favorite class/subclass is Archfey warlocks, Illusion and Enchantment wizards. When I start getting to a point where almost everything is immune to charm and fear it just sucks.
Before I rip into the problems I will say what I like. The Bard is is good imo. I have a maybe change for the College. The new feats are mostly fine.
College of Lore problem: It doesn’t feel like the 5e Lore Bard. Honestly that might be okay but I have a fix for that if we want to push it back into something more familiar.
6th Lvl Feature change- Songs of Lore- You may choose one Cantrip and one spell of 1st level or above from any spell list. That spell must be of a level you can prepapre with Bard spell slots. It is always prepared and doesn’t count against the number of spells you can prepare. You may change this cantrip and spell whenever you complete a long rest.
This feels more inline with 5e Bard, but we would be giving up an excellent 6th level feature in cunning inspiration.
Ranger problem: there is a lot to unpack. Doesn’t have the feel of a Ranger. Steps on the Rogues toes too much now. Hunter’s Mark is too strong early doesn’t really fulfill Favored Enemy for the entire game. Favored Foe is weak.
‘Favored Enemy- scales, 1st level grants HM always prepared and doesn’t count against spells prepared. 3rd level HM no longer requires concentration. 7th level you can use study and search actions as a bonus action against marked targets. You have advantage on the roll. 11th HM damage is a d8.17th HM damage is a d10
1st Lvl Expertise becomes Natural Explorer- You gain proficiency and expertise in Nature and Survival skills. If you already have proficiency in the skill choose another Ranger skill to gain proficiency in. If you already have expertise in the skill choose any skill you have proficiency and gain expertise in that skill. You also gain proficiency in cartographer tools or navigators tools.
Foe Slayer- either make the damage static Wis mod increase that it is in 5e or Proficiency bonus to marked target.
This allows HM to not be too strong a lvl 1, and worth staying for all the perks beyond 3rd level. I originally thought steal hunters lore from the subclass and put it here for the 7th level HM boon for all rangers but saw an opportunity to work with the new codified search and study actions. Natural Explore instead of straight expertise because sadly I’m seeing if the mechanics don’t force you toward the flavor people will just optimize. Also the Ranger was feeling too Rogue like with open expertise.
Rogue problem: Can’t sneak attack on opportunity attacks or in special occasions on other people’s turns. Their expertise doesn’t feel special any more (partially fixed with Ranger change) Thief needs a little boost also.
Expertise- allow rogues to also choose tools for expertise from this list if they have proficiency in the tool- Disguise Kit, Forgery Kit, Jeweler’s tools, and Thieves tools
Sneak attack returns to once per turn when you attack with a finesse or ranged weapon.
Thief fast hands- return interact with an object as part of fast hands cunning action.
Movement problem- it’s clunky and I just don’t like it. Jump as an action is bot good and bad.
Any movement consumes all speed types up to your highest speed. So if you have 30 speed, 10 climb, 40 swim. You can’t walk 10ft to a wall then climb it with your climb speed because it’s already been used while walking. But you could climb a 10ft wall, walk 20ft to some water, and swim 10ft. Taking the Dash action gives you second block of movement that is subtracted from separately. So you could walk 20ft to a wall. Take the dash action. Climb 10ft up the wall. At this moment you have 2 blocks of movement to account for that are separate. One has 10ft speed or 20 swim remaining and the other has 20 speed or 30 walk remaining. Now I need to figure out how to say that plainly so it’s easily understood.
Jump becomes its own special action but can be used in place of an action, a bonus action or movement if you haven’t used any this turn. If used as a bonus action you only clear a distance equal to half the roll. You may only use Jump once per turn no matter if you replaced an action, bonus action or movement.
Feat problem- Crossbow expert is broken and Ritual Caster is bad.
Crossbow expert should return to its 5e version and a new feat introduced to handle two crossbows and sword and crossbow. Which is what the UA version does right now and not very well unless you are an artificer with repeating shot or Thri-keen. Otherwise once you fire you can’t get ammunition because your hands are full.
Ritual Caster drop quick ritual and return the book and ability to learn more rituals. Even if it means it’s limited it to 1 ritual when you first get the book and you have to seek out the others.
That’s all I got. I’m sure as everyone keeps playtesting and talking about this more problems will come up. Most can be fixed and I’m sure we will end up with a product we all will enjoy. Even if we don’t all get exactly what we want.
NO!! crossbow expert is on par with the great weapon master of 5e it should be untouched. If anything, they should keep it and revert pole arm master and sentinel to synergizing.
Main issue with Ranger Hunters mark should not be a spell. Their are monsters in dnd that are immune to spells of 5th level and bellow now your key future is useless. Bad design.
This UA crossbow expert doesn’t work mechanically. You would need to have two hand crossbows or light melee and hand crossbow to get the bonus action attack, but after you attacked with both weapons you wouldn’t be able to get ammunition because your hands are full. Unless you play a thri kreen.
Monster immune to spells 5th level or below doesn’t effect hunters mark. You don’t cast the spell on them. You cast it on self. They would still take the damage.
I think you are incorrect about Hunter's Mark, it has a range of 90', not self, and so does have to target the creature. It has no save, though, so I do not know how that might affect immunity, or it might depend on how the immunity is described.
Yes. I understand wanting to close the loophole of getting sneak attack more than once per round. And thematically, I think it makes sense to limit it to once per round. I've always seen it as a combination of training, luck, and finding the right opening. That opportunity probably doesn't realistically come up more than once every 6 seconds.
But I think it's a huge flavor fail that the UA rules prevent sneak attack from being used "sneakily".
Holding an action and waiting for the fighter to engage the enemy. Setting up an enemy to be distracted. Sneaky.
Stabbing an enemy when they turn to run away from you. Sneaky.
Hiding and holding an action to surprise attack someone when they run by. Sneaky.
It just doesn't make sense to disallow the feature for these situations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unified spell lists solve this issue. Instead of adding specific spells, they could just write, "you gain access to arcane spells of divination and enchantment schools". Any future spells that fit these criteria will be as good as added automatically.
changes to two weapon fighting
First rule change:
When welding two weapons one that have the light you can make an additional attack with the light weapon in your off had when you take the attack action on your turn. This additional attack does not get the benefits of your damage modifiers. You can draw and stow both weapons at the same time. While wielding two weapons you can add +1 to your Ac. If any weapons have the thrown property, you can through them. The additional attack can be made against any enemy in range and does not need to be the same target as your first attack.
Three feats
Two Weapon fighting
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons
level 1 background feat. You dedication to fighting with two weapons has giving you greater skill then others at using two weapons. You can wield weapons that do not have the light property so long as they do not require to hands (unless they have the versatile property) one of the two weapons that you wield must be light and you can add your bonus damage to your additional attack. You may also make an additional attack whenever you take the extra attack action or attack of opportunity.
Dual Wielder
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, level 4
+1 to Strength/dex,
You can now us dual wield any two weapons that are not two-handed weapons (unless they have the versatile property). Your additional attacks do not trigger effects of the enemy for being attacked or taking damage. in addition, you gain two fighting tactics guarding blade and blitzing barrage.
Guarding Blade
As a bonus action you can gain choose to lose the benefit of the additional attack to gain an additional +3 to your ac till the start of your next turn and the ability to make a free attack against any enemy that makes an attack agent an ally that is within range of your weapon (only once till your next turn) and When hit or missed by a melee weapon attack from an attacker within 5ft of you, you can use your reaction to immediately make one melee weapon attack against the attacker.
Blitzing Barrage
As a bonus action you gain -1 to AC and the following benefits +2 on all attack made on your turn +2 to attack role for each missed attack, additional attack, or extra attack till your next turn and -1 to crit chance (if you miss three attacks your next attack would crit on a 20-17 if you would usually on crit on a 20). When you crit or deal damage to a single enemy with both of your weapons on your turn you can make another additional attack agents an enemy within range.
Perfected Two Weapon fighting
+1 to strength, dex, or con.
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, Dual Wielder feat, Two Weapon fighting feat, level 8
If you hit and enemy with both of your weapons you get the one following benefit based on the weapon damage after a failed save of 8 plus your proficiency plus your dex/strength. You can only apply one effect against a single enemy till your next turn. When you use Garding blade you gain additional uses equal to your proficiency when defending your allies and Blitzing Barrage now give all of your additional attacks advantage if they did not already have advantage.
Slashing (make single additional attack combining the damage dice of the two weapons)
Bludgeoning (knock the enemy prone) movement speed is reduced by half regardless of save.
Piercing (make single additional attack) till your next turn all attack and spell save are increased by half of the damage of the additional attack to the target.
any disrupting blow - enemy loses concentration and one of their attacks on their turn if they lack multi attack or extra attack then they cannot take the attack action on their nest turn.
Ranger changes
hunters mark will no longer be a spell but an ability that will scale through level.
the 6th level ability will be a class future at level 1 or 5 and will be replaced with fearing pray whenever you mark an enemy with hunter's mark or you deal them damage, they must succeed a d20 test or be frightened of you till the end of your next turn.
Changes to Roge
You can sneak attack as a reaction. and the level 13 ability applies to at least one other ally with in 5ft. Oh, and the ability to pick your opponent's pockets during combat will now also allow you to use an item as a bonus action even if it would usually require a single action.
Great weapon fighting
Revert to the -5 for +10 for all attacks. Allow it to work with all two-handed weapons again.
Sentinel and Pol arm master Will synergize again.
NO!! crossbow expert is on par with the great weapon master of 5e it should be untouched. If anything, they should keep it and revert pole arm master and sentinel to synergizing.
Main issue with Ranger Hunters mark should not be a spell. Their are monsters in dnd that are immune to spells of 5th level and bellow now your key future is useless. Bad design.
In other words, you should say they should be able to use sneak attacks on reaction and attacks of opportunities.
That I would say is an issue with creature design rather than class design. Having creatures which have immunity that flat out invalidate a character's abilities in combat is bad design, Rakshasa for example, they are just a big feck you to all spell casters. They are CR13, so full casters only have a single 7th level spell slot, you get a single spell which the Rakshasa has advantage on any saving throws if you try anything that requires one. At least with say a Beholder, it has to maintain sight to stop you casting spells and it can't attack you with it's other eyes while maintaining that sight on you, so you're still doing something if you can't cast a spell, against a Rakshasa a spell caster does a single spell and then is pretty much useless, unless you can somehow affect the terrain, like burning a wooden bridge the Rakshasa might be standing on.
I am not against immunity in general, just only when it gets to a point where characters in combat are basically entirely invalidated. If a creature needs such immunity then there should be a way to disable or bypass it, such as say throwing silver dust or holy water on it, or that the immunity requires the creature's reaction. So if you have two casters it can only resist one of those spell casters. Or perhaps there is some type of puzzle the party is meant to do first to unlock some ancient relic that when held, ignores the effect of that creature's immunity. There is no decent reason for basically making a character completely useless in battle and it feels bad when it happens.
If it's because you yourself only took a longsword and greatsword when the creature is immune to slashing damage tho, that's on the player, since you could have also had a club, a hammer, a spear, etc, so single damage types like that, I am also okay with. Two may also be okay as long as the two aren't Piercing and Slashing (you invalidate rogues with both of those).
I'm actually fine with it as a monster design at least for spell casters who have such a huge tool kit. Going back to older editions when fighting a golem or whatever a mage would have to change tactics a bit. So the golem or Rakshasa is immune to spells, cool your friends aren't. Cast haste, cast fly etc. My only issue with immune to spell type creatures is I think they need to describe how they work more, if you cast wall of stone can a Rakshasa just walk right through it or is it stone and still stops them, heck can they see through it. As long as the number of creatures are limited so they are designed as special challenges for certain party members I consider it a plus.
That might be true for Wizards, but what about sorcerers or even Warlocks..... sorcerers having less overall spells and generally being more blaster focused might be left with little utility and warlocks are down to a 1/day feature, what else they have is 5th level and their main thing is level 0, being eldritch blast. Bards, Clerics and Druids might still have a lot of party utility they can throw out but realistically sorcerer has very little and warlock even less.
I'd say in by the time you are facing Rakshasa a sorcerer should have a couple non blasty spells, and while yes its once a day features a lock will have at least 2, maybe 3 of them by the time they face them and gain should have some non direct attack options by then. A fight is sometimes harder for some people, flying creatures vs a strength based martial is a pain in the butt. I don't see this as different.
It's honestly okay to have some fights be harder for one class than another. I would say it makes the game better even. The game is meant for a party. Everyone should have strengths as well as weaknesses.
When you encounter a rust monster that can eat your fighter's weapons, or a rakshasa that ignores the wizard's spells, the party has to adapt. Characters who don't normally get to shine have their moment. You get creative with terrain and tactics. Maybe you run away! It keeps every combat from being the same cycle of skills over and over. It's a good thing.
And there are thousands of monsters to choose from. If one would completely ruin the whole game for all of your characters, you don't have to use it. But new challenges make the game more exciting.
Warlock will only have 1 level 7 feature, the other is level 6 which Rakshasa are immune too, which is why I didn't bring it up. Warlock doesn't exactly have the best selection in those level 7 spells, either and the best ones are saves, which Rakshasa gets advantage on, like forcecage. So once warlock blows that one thing, they are basically left with nothing since Rakshasa ignore spells and magical effects.
There is a difference between "harder" and "entirely invalidated", the point where a class is just sat there looking pretty. Which can happen with some creatures, such as Rakshasa.
Well, I guess if you have a Warlock in the party that built every skill, spell, and invocation into dealing magic spell damage only. One that has no weapons. No support spells. No useful skills to use the environment. No potions or magic items that could help. Then I guess in that case maybe the rakshasa isn't a monster you would want to use against the party.
Unless it is narratively interesting, like a challenge from their patron to test them. Or a running villain you want them to have to meet and then come back later better prepared to defeat. Or you set up a kind of weakness like you suggested, a plot device they can exploit. Maybe a gift from their patron that will open a vulnerability if they use it right. Then the encounter is even more fun as the party runs interference for the warlock to put the magic gem in the statue's eye or something.
Unless you're a celestial or hexblade, you're probably not really having any of those as warlocks generally don't get support spells. As a celestial you can heal as a hexblade you have a weapon at least, but all others, the only spell you see a lot in sub classes that might look helpful is Great Invisibility, but Rakshasa have True Seeing as spell... but I think we both agree, DMs can most definitely use their own ways to fix it. I just worry about people who follow modules and don't perceive the issue until they hit the creature, however that is going back to DMing skill. I think the stat blocks should at least hint or give suggestions on how to avoid those situations in the first place, within the creature's design. More so it allows an expansion on that creature's lore.
Well if its a level 13 warlock they have force cage. Its the only 7th level option worth a damn for them and it stops a Rakshasa dead. And again they use their other spells at that point. And warlocks at that level should have them. Their eldritch blast or hexblade attacks cover their basic damage, they will have a few control spells, maybe 1-2 big boom with synaptic static and sickening radiance, the rest should be more niche. With their base damage covered through a cantrip they are very free to take a lot of niche spells admittedly their support list is pretty sparse but invisibility/fly will help in a fight. Maybe they wont have anything to do the first time they deal with something like this, but when they level up they can add an option. And some spells due to the lack of clarity I have no idea how they pan out. If they have summon undead, does the undeads attack work on them its a spell but its also a creature. Wall of stone, can the Rakshasa ignore that.
Even if they ignore a summons attacks, I think a warlock will usually add more to a fight vs a Rakshasa than a strength fighter will vs ranged flying enemies as they should have at least one support spell and that will do more than missing constantly. Heck if they just know remove curse they might be more valuable to the party for that fight than anyone else is. But a single cast of invisibility giving the whole party advantage on their first attack is useful. They only have a AC 16 and 110 HP its only going to be a couple rounds at that level so a one round advantage is solid.
I don't think arguing over Rakshasa anymore is going to be greatly productive but I already mentioned forcecage and how Rakshasa still gets advantage against it. Rakshasa usually do have minions so that is where you can make a difference in a normal encounter, but Rakshasa alone is a creature which itself can use most of those same tactics you mention, including going invisible, using the fly spell etc. But yes, a fighter using a greatsword and action surge can potentially end a Rakshasa in a single turn, altho not that likely still possible. The point was more about how Warlock would get invalidated. Invisibility is concentration, so you can give a single target advantage... so the same as a find familiar, which thankfully does work on a Rakshasa since find familiar is a spell of instantaneous duration, so for 6th level a warlock that choose create undead could be useful, tho I don't think anybody should be choosing such a spell just encase they end out fighting against a single creature; unless that creature is specifically important to their backstory.
But the original point was not trying to figure out how if you built your character differently you might not be useless in a specific encounter, but instead having to be careful about literally invalidating a character in certain battles, which is a much greater issue. That there should be care taken in that, another example is a werewolf, it would be shitty to toss one out against a party that literally didn't know there was a werewolf coming up, unless it's part of setup (like you have some paladins/clerics chasing it down which forces it to flee kinda of thing), since it's CR3 most characters won't have a magic weapon yet and most won't have silvered their weapon since there isn't much else at CR3 really demanding anything like that, but a werewolf is an example of what else I mean, in that if you give the set-up then the party knows to get their weapons silvered to fight a werewolf, the immunity is conditional in such a way that there is something active the party can do to bypass it.
Yeah, that's a fair point. I think 5e is a very good edition of DnD. But they have consistently been pretty bad at teaching DMs how to actually... DM. I wish every monster came with suggestions on how to run them.
And the more creature lore the better!
Nitpik but Invisibility on most casters is one person, on a lock its 4 people at these levels. Sure every caster can do that, a lock just will. That is why its a useful buff for the lock whether its combat, or recon, its decently likely to be the whole party. Yeah the lock has just a couple options here and hopefully 1d&d will give them a better spell list, but its a really specific encounter and unless you are fighting them routinely as part of a campaign my point is a one off encounter where you face a enemy where you are "invalidated" isn't a big deal. As I said against a lot of enemy type martials can get similarly invalidated. I think since flight isn't labeled as immunity to melee we forget what it means. Similarly something like a fog cloud effect nullifies a rogues sneak attacks. As whether its canceled out by some sort of advantage or not they are still suffering from disadvantage and therefore can't sneak attack.(which is a weird rule i usually house rule out of), but its not labeled immunity to rogues so we don't think about it. For magic its almost always labeled immunity to magic. The werewolf as you mention its labeled immunity to all non magic/silvered weapons.
And for something like a werewolf, depends on encounter design but given the low level people might not know what to do. But I'm okay with it in theory, a fighting retreat as you are not prepared. The martials tanking it keeping it away from the casters who can actually do something. It would be bad vs an entire party of martials. I just think immunities and other effects which might invalidate a player for a fight or two is a value add. Get players to think outside of the box, research things, come back later when better prepared. Heck you can easily invalidate players with just terrain and tactics.
Personally I'd say in this realm for magic immunity the only problem i have is how widespread certain immunities are. Like immunity to charm effects is, or on the mundane side though its less common for PCs immunity to poison. Yeah spellcaster X has a ton of other options but if you were focusing on it as a lock, sorcerer or wizard your focus is nullified by like 1/3 of the enemies you will face which is annoying, and if you were playing a master poisoner it would suck how often enemies were just immune to your core build.
Can it go wrong with a new DM, sure, but there is nothing wrong with monsters that require more experience. But yes it would be nice if in the stat block it gave a red flag of some kind. This is powers not enemies but in hero games they had a coupe symbols for powers to watch out for ! meant her this may disrupt things more than you expect, a stop sign meant hey this changes the campaign. Which was nice for new GMs to know to maybe not let players take powers like those. So some kind of symbol next to the monsters name to let DMs know there is something special about running this monster with some text in a sidebar explaining the issue would be nice.
Ya immunity to charm effects are the bane of my existence as my favorite classes are typically Bard and my favorite class/subclass is Archfey warlocks, Illusion and Enchantment wizards. When I start getting to a point where almost everything is immune to charm and fear it just sucks.
This UA crossbow expert doesn’t work mechanically. You would need to have two hand crossbows or light melee and hand crossbow to get the bonus action attack, but after you attacked with both weapons you wouldn’t be able to get ammunition because your hands are full. Unless you play a thri kreen.
Monster immune to spells 5th level or below doesn’t effect hunters mark. You don’t cast the spell on them. You cast it on self. They would still take the damage.
I think you are incorrect about Hunter's Mark, it has a range of 90', not self, and so does have to target the creature. It has no save, though, so I do not know how that might affect immunity, or it might depend on how the immunity is described.
Yes. I understand wanting to close the loophole of getting sneak attack more than once per round. And thematically, I think it makes sense to limit it to once per round. I've always seen it as a combination of training, luck, and finding the right opening. That opportunity probably doesn't realistically come up more than once every 6 seconds.
But I think it's a huge flavor fail that the UA rules prevent sneak attack from being used "sneakily".
It just doesn't make sense to disallow the feature for these situations.