But some spells and powers are just going to be broken. Maybe not this one, but they do exist. You can't buff everyone else to match a broken feature. You have to fix it. And fixing a few broken things is so much better than just upgrading everything to match them.
There are certain things that do need a 'buff.' And there are things that need fixed too, even if it feels like a 'nerf.' It’s just my opinion obviously, but I don't want every class to get progressively stronger and more broken just to try to match the few things that are already broken.
But I have a feeling that most people are going to complain if any ability they like to use gets fixed, because they'll think their favorite is getting 'nerfed.' Lore Bard losing that Magical Secrets might not be a good decision. Or it might end up being great for balance and fixing a problem that would occur in the context of the new classes and spell selection rules.
I complained that Thieves should still get to Use an Object with Cunning Action. I think it was a mistake taking their coolest feature. But I understand why they did it. It was broken because it wasn't clear. I would prefer it come back, just with more limitations and cleary defined uses. It will still be a nerf, but it will be a good fix of a broken ability.
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that. Spiritual Weapon is in that same realm of broken. I don't know that this is the right fix without testing it yet. But it does need a fix.
I honestly haven't really found a spell that was outright broken and I never found Spiritual Weapon to be in any realm of broken. I also believe the Sharpshooter and GWM nerf was also wrong as it severely nerfed martials. If the issue was because it was always the optimal choice, then the solution is not to nerf it but to buff other things to add more choices.
If it doesn't have allies and is vulnerable to Banish, I'd say that is a flaw in the encounter design rather than a flaw with Banishment. Also, combining it with rope trick or tiny hut is essentially taking extra steps to make it a sure thing; so already you need to take extra steps to make it a sure thing.
That's being way too quick to blame encounter design; a DM putting a high CR creature in front of their players should reasonably expect it to be a challenge, not something that a single spell could trivially defeat.
And combining with rope trick or tiny hut is not exactly an arduous extra step, there's also the much simpler one of "cast it and then run away as fast as you possibly can", because your concentration can't be broken if you can't be hit
It is encounter design 101 that if you put everything in one creature, the encounter is flawed. Action Economy alone makes this an issue. Also, I wouldn't call using a 4th level spell trivial. However, singular high level CR's have never really been a challenge against a group of experienced players.
There are plenty of ways to catch up or have ranged attacks or simply have the area the encounter taking place in to make it difficult to run away. Also, in regards to Tiny Hut in specific, it is incredibly arduous because it requires a second person to set it up beforehand (the usual cast time for Tiny Hut is 1 minute which is 10 rounds) and that caster cannot leave the Tiny Hut. With Rope Trick, you would still either need a person to set it up for you or take another turn to do so yourself. Both can be countered by a simple Dispel Magic as well. Also, nothing says enemies can't climb the Rope for Rope Trick; only the entrance is invisible, not the rope.
If your target succeeds on the first save then it's no worse than any other save-or-suck spell like dominate person; however if it fails, then you've removed it entirely from the fight for a minimum of one round. That means a 100% reduction in the damage it can do, and a full round for your allies to focus on other targets, heal themselves and each other, ready abilities and actions for its return etc.
Banishing the target permanently has never really been the main benefit of the spell, it was a narrative sweetener, but it also potentially makes the spell way too strong
Plenty of other spells can remove creatures from fights, multiples at a time; hypnotic pattern for example. Cause Fear, Command can do it for a round as a 1st level spell. On the martial side of things, Monks can do it with Stunning Strike. Removing something from a fight for a round is not something to write home about.
The Banishing effect in no way makes the spell too strong. There are plenty of counterplays for it if a DM really needs it. Right now, the spell is just bad. Hell, people don't use Flesh to Stone because of the multiple saves needed for it to stick; this is even worse than that as it requires 10 saves in a row.
Adventuring parties typically number at least 4 players; if the party's goal is to defeat a dangerous enemy then it'd be strange to assume that the other 3+ are unwilling to help. And as I've said, rope trick is also a readily available option for an ally to cast which requires no setup.
Also like I say, there's the free and easy option of just casting the spell at its maximum range of 60 feet and then running away. If you prefer (or can't get very far) you can hide, or simply take cover, your average caster has a pretty high effective range so they don't even necessarily need to take themselves out of a fight to do it.
It's not a matter of being willing to help, it is a matter of taking two people out of the fight when it comes to Tiny Hut. Again, if your encounter design relies that heavily on one singular creature to the point where it falls apart to a single CC effect, that is more on the encounter design. The other parts of the encounter should be threatening on their own if this is supposed to be a huge encounter. Rope Trick is its own setup, and as I stated before has its counter plays.
If the spell was that broken, then how are people managing with it right now? There are people playing 5E with these spells in their current state just fine. People are managing with them. Every group I've been in, and many of them include some of the sweatiest players around, have managed to play games from 1 to 20 with these spells just fine. We don't hold back on using them and go all out.
Ok, so... The thing is (and this is relevant for the discussion of 1D&D as well, from what I've seen) is that what I really didn't like about 3.5e was the reliance on feats to make characters/class more 'modular'.
And the reason why I didn't like that is because it locked away so many interesting actions and possibilities behind predefined feats and I was really, really tired of people talking about how this 'gave you so many cool new options', when those options were always present, you just had to think of them yourself and discuss it with the DM.
I had a quick look on Archives of Nethys and I saw the level 1 Fighter Feat 'Combat Assessment' (it happens to be the first feat I looked at), which, translated to 5e term, lets you do a Knowledge check about a creature if you hit it (I'm not entirely sure whether you do this in addition to damage or in place of it). And I instantly dislike this, because the fact that this is a feat implies that you can't do it without having that feat.
If you're playing a system where you have to take a feat in order to make a feint so you can learn something about an enemy instead of just saying "GM, I use my action to make a feint attack because I want to see what I can assess about my opponent from their reaction" and having the GM respond with "Cool idea, make the appropriate 'knowing about this thing' check instead of an attack roll." then you are playing a system that's trying to turn every interesting roleplay interaction or creative use of your abilities into a rule and that's not the kind of system I like.
That's my biggest problem with a lot of things that have been suggested as combat abilities for Martials especially. The more you define an action as an explicit option to be taken by a class, the more you exclude it from everyone else. This is fine when you're talking about magic. A normal person wouldn't be expected to be able to swing a sword and make green flames jump from it to multiple people. But a normal person should be able to try to disarm someone. Even if they're bad at it.
I've been informed lately that some people really need these explicit rules. Their DMs won't let them try things without an ability listed on their character for it. I have sympathy for them being in that situation. But there has to be an answer that works for everyone. Even if it means listing a lot of basic combat maneuvers that anyone can attempt. Things that Martials get a bonus at.
Pathfinder 2e looks like a lot of work went into it. The starter box set is fantastic. But I never want to play that game personally. And I really don't want DnD to turn into it. DMs need good guidance and tools. Players need freedom. It's what sets TTRPGs apart from video games.
Ok, so... The thing is (and this is relevant for the discussion of 1D&D as well, from what I've seen) is that what I really didn't like about 3.5e was the reliance on feats to make characters/class more 'modular'.
And the reason why I didn't like that is because it locked away so many interesting actions and possibilities behind predefined feats and I was really, really tired of people talking about how this 'gave you so many cool new options', when those options were always present, you just had to think of them yourself and discuss it with the DM.
I had a quick look on Archives of Nethys and I saw the level 1 Fighter Feat 'Combat Assessment' (it happens to be the first feat I looked at), which, translated to 5e term, lets you do a Knowledge check about a creature if you hit it (I'm not entirely sure whether you do this in addition to damage or in place of it). And I instantly dislike this, because the fact that this is a feat implies that you can't do it without having that feat.
If you're playing a system where you have to take a feat in order to make a feint so you can learn something about an enemy instead of just saying "GM, I use my action to make a feint attack because I want to see what I can assess about my opponent from their reaction" and having the GM respond with "Cool idea, make the appropriate 'knowing about this thing' check instead of an attack roll." then you are playing a system that's trying to turn every interesting roleplay interaction or creative use of your abilities into a rule and that's not the kind of system I like.
That is the thing, if you are trained in deception you can do a feint attack, no feat required. Recall knowledge is an action anyone can take. So on and so forth. The ability you are talking about allows the person to attack AND take the recall knowledge action with the same action so if you hit you basically get a free action to recall knowledge, so you can do damage AND learn about your foe in the same action. The game works on a 3 action system where everything you do is an action, moving, attacking, using a skill, interacting with objects. Spells are balanced by each component being an action to do. So if a spell has a verbal and somatic component you need 2 actions to cast it, but none of the things are locked behind feats. You can run, jump, demoralize (intimidate), feint, recall knowledge what ever you want as an action. The feat system just allows you to expand upon that further. There is even a multi-attack penalty that encourages someone to do more than just attack a bunch on their turn as each attack is less accurate after the first.
In this case normally on your turn you could recall knowledge as an action to learn about your foe, move to get close to your foe and then attack. No feat required. With this feat you could walk up to the foe as one action, second action attack, if you hit you get recall knowledge for free and now you have a 3rd action you can use to demoralize or fient to set your buddy up for his turn, disengage from the opponent, make another attack with the multi-attack penalty, maybe even trip...... The feat just frees up an action, it does not mean you can't recall knowledge normally.
Edit: to Stego's point in 2e, anyone can try to disarm if they want, or trip, or shove, feint (but I think you need to be at least trained in deception), demoralize (as long as the person can see and hear you, even easier if they can understand you). So on and so forth. Yes, many of them are defined, but technically anything you want could fall under a skill action. It is just a question if your DM would require that to be a skill you are trained in or not.
Edit 2: anyway a little off-topic. but just looking at a single feat without looking at the rest of the system is a not a good way to judge a system. Check out some vids by Nonat 1 and the like. Things are much more free form and less rules intensive than first glance would suggest.
Edit 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGaOdIRljvQ Check this out, it may give a better idea of the system by just a tad (though his understanding of balance is way off which is funny).
But some spells and powers are just going to be broken. Maybe not this one, but they do exist. You can't buff everyone else to match a broken feature. You have to fix it. And fixing a few broken things is so much better than just upgrading everything to match them.
There are certain things that do need a 'buff.' And there are things that need fixed too, even if it feels like a 'nerf.' It’s just my opinion obviously, but I don't want every class to get progressively stronger and more broken just to try to match the few things that are already broken.
But I have a feeling that most people are going to complain if any ability they like to use gets fixed, because they'll think their favorite is getting 'nerfed.' Lore Bard losing that Magical Secrets might not be a good decision. Or it might end up being great for balance and fixing a problem that would occur in the context of the new classes and spell selection rules.
I complained that Thieves should still get to Use an Object with Cunning Action. I think it was a mistake taking their coolest feature. But I understand why they did it. It was broken because it wasn't clear. I would prefer it come back, just with more limitations and cleary defined uses. It will still be a nerf, but it will be a good fix of a broken ability.
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that. Spiritual Weapon is in that same realm of broken. I don't know that this is the right fix without testing it yet. But it does need a fix.
I honestly haven't really found a spell that was outright broken and I never found Spiritual Weapon to be in any realm of broken. I also believe the Sharpshooter and GWM nerf was also wrong as it severely nerfed martials. If the issue was because it was always the optimal choice, then the solution is not to nerf it but to buff other things to add more choices.
What exactly could be buffed to be as good of a choice as "Get +10 to your damage with no limitations on how many times you can do it"?
How about getting additional options that allow for more crowd control for one. Cleaving attacks to hit multiple enemies with a single attack. Maybe stances that offer various bonuses, like maybe something that offered both to hit and damage, but smaller numbers obviously. Maybe a War Cry that gives a small boost to the party, sacrificing your personal DPS for party DPS. Plenty of ways to to around it, especially when the +10 to damage comes with a -5 to hit.
Pathfinder 2e looks like a lot of work went into it. The starter box set is fantastic. But I never want to play that game personally. And I really don't want DnD to turn into it. DMs need good guidance and tools. Players need freedom. It's what sets TTRPGs apart from video games.
This concept is what is important. Not every good idea will fit in the puzzle that makes up the dnd system. The action economy of p2e isn't the same and that's actually an appeal for some. The balance isn't the same and that's OK. Dms having one spell ruining an encounter and the narrative behind it shows dm related problems that built up over 5e's history. Dms needed to know how to interact with such features. The new glossary helps but some of the other changes distill out nuances and create new issues.
In particular the "mother may I mechanics" wouldn't have been such a problem if wotc actually gave the advice dms needed.
Party intrest Encounters and fail forward options for story development are also really good things that have been left out by wotc in spite of requests. If a clear understanding of these ideas were regularly spread.... Banishment, guidance, situational or ribbon abilities never become problems an instead become interesting play features.
It is encounter design 101 that if you put everything in one creature, the encounter is flawed.
Since when? Literally the entire point of legendary enemies is that they can go toe-to-toe with an entire adventuring party alone thanks to their legendary actions, lair actions etc., and there are a number of non-legendary creatures that can easily fill the same niche.
I wouldn't call using a 4th level spell trivial.
It's trivial if it's the only spell you need to cast in the entire fight.
There are plenty of ways to catch up or have ranged attacks or simply have the area the encounter taking place in to make it difficult to run away. Also, in regards to Tiny Hut in specific, it is incredibly arduous because it requires a second person to set it up beforehand (the usual cast time for Tiny Hut is 1 minute which is 10 rounds) and that caster cannot leave the Tiny Hut. With Rope Trick, you would still either need a person to set it up for you or take another turn to do so yourself. Both can be countered by a simple Dispel Magic as well. Also, nothing says enemies can't climb the Rope for Rope Trick; only the entrance is invisible, not the rope.
If the trade off is bypassing an entire fight then there is nothing arduous about having one other party member out of your party of 4 help you.
You complained earlier about poor encounter design, but now you're talking about loading up enemies with dispel magic or extra ranged attacks specifically to counteract what your players can do? If you need to circumvent your players to stop them from circumventing your boss with a spell that can be taken on a whole bunch of spell lists, then the problem is with that spell, which is why it needs to be nerfed.
Plenty of other spells can remove creatures from fights, multiples at a time; hypnotic pattern for example. Cause Fear, Command can do it for a round as a 1st level spell. On the martial side of things, Monks can do it with Stunning Strike. Removing something from a fight for a round is not something to write home about.
None of these remove the enemy from the fight, the enemy is still there, and none of them can permanently remove it. Command is extremely limited in what it can actually force the creature to do, and it won't prevent reactions etc., cause fear doesn't take an enemy out of a fight at all, it just debuffs its attacks/checks, hypnotic pattern targets a more commonly proficient save and it is a lot easier for allies to snap an enemy out of it, meanwhile Stunning Strike requires you to hit first and beat one of the most commonly proficient saves.
The advantage of current banishment is that high Charisma with proficiency is uncommon, and the only way to bring the enemy back is to attack the caster directly in the hopes of breaking their concentration which isn't always possible to guarantee even if the caster just stands there and lets you hit them, as many casters are built to make breaking concentration as hard as possible. The proposed update to banishment still has these same advantages, it just isn't arguably worth the 4th-level slot anymore, but mechanically it's still a good (3rd-level) spell.
The Banishing effect in no way makes the spell too strong. There are plenty of counterplays for it if a DM really needs it. Right now, the spell is just bad. Hell, people don't use Flesh to Stone because of the multiple saves needed for it to stick; this is even worse than that as it requires 10 saves in a row.
The updated banishment doesn't require multiple saves to be useful, it achieves full effect (no enemy) after only a single failure, it only requires multiple failures to get rid of them permanently and only on enemies where that's possible. If that's really the goal you're trying to achieve then there are ways to make it harder for the enemy to succeed so that it can go through, and your DM is always free to just have the enemy fail if they want it to happen for narrative reasons, but now their enemies actually have a chance at resisting it.
Very few other spells completely take an enemy out of a fight without additional saving throws, and those that do (like hypnotic pattern or sleep), are easier to snap an enemy out of since it only requires an action, not having to go after the caster.
It's not a matter of being willing to help, it is a matter of taking two people out of the fight when it comes to Tiny Hut.
If taking two people out of the fight takes a much worse enemy out of the fight then it's a simple trade off, and as I've pointed out multiple times tiny hut is the least convenient of the options, it just happens to be an option. I'm wishing I hadn't mentioned that one now as you seem to be fixating upon it.
Again, if your encounter design relies that heavily on one singular creature to the point where it falls apart to a single CC effect, that is more on the encounter design.
Again you're blaming DM's for an abusable spell, but your argument is essentially that DMs should painstakingly design every encounter around nerfing everything their players might want to do as an alternative. There are plenty of iconic enemies in D&D that shouldn't (and don't) require minions to be threatening, but if you can't run them as intended if your party has a certain spell then the problem is with the spell not the encounter.
If the spell was that broken, then how are people managing with it right now?
They're not; either their DMs have to do what you suggest and do extra work to counteract their players, run it as-is and it's a disappointing encounter because a single spell ended it early, or the players might rein it in themselves if they start to find encounters boring if they become too easy.
And to be clear, the point isn't that the spell is unstoppable; you still need that initial failed save, but unlike similar spells maintaining it is a lot easier as the only way to end it early is to break concentration, unlike other spells that allow repeated saves or have other ways to end them. This difference is probably why it was 4th-level to begin with, but that alone doesn't balance it because when it does work it can be so much more powerful.
Compare it for example to hold monster which is 5th-level, but an enemy can break free of it on its own or concentration can be broken. While the paralyzed condition offers extra opportunities to deal damage that banishment doesn't, if what you need from it is to stop the enemy attacking it's actually a lot worse because it's a higher level slot and with a more unpredictable duration.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'd say Spiritual Weapons is fine, same with Banishment. They currently feel good to use. Rather than nerfing things, I'd say buffing things to match is the better solution; this includes buffing martials as well.
This kind of thinking is bad for the game, if everything can only become more powerful and nothing can ever be nerfed then you get spiraling increases in power and unless you have the latest book your character is useless, and DMs are constantly having to homebrew monsters to keep up with player power levels. I know I already give Dispel Magic and / or Counterspell to every caster monster because of the explosion of availability of magic to all kinds of character builds. I routinely see parties that are at least 75% full spellcasters, so a combat without at least one monster with Dispel Magic or Counterspell is not a combat, it is just a spell-slot tax as any enemy that is an actual threat is crowd-controlled into oblivion - mainly by Banishment, Hypnotic Pattern, and Wall of Force.
Alternatively, I could just do what one of my DMs does which is cheat the dice and give every enemy Magic Resistance so that no monster above a minion ever fails a saving throw. This latter case is probably why people 'feel' like the change for monsters to fail saves is so low. RAW monsters have ~50% chance to fail a saving throw throughout the game, but in practice DMs cheat those saves all the time because crowd-control spells and abilities are too easily available and too powerful.
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that.
I actually totally disagree with why it was broken here. Mathematically it should have been very common for -5/+10 to not be the best option - any enemy with only a +2 bonus to AC over the standard for the party level would make SS/GWM only a better choice if you had advantage on the attack roll. The real problem with SS/GWM -5/+10 was that it caused a million and one interactions that made lots of other things in the game WAY more powerful than they were supposed to be. E.g. Bless was a good spell to cast even in tier 3 & 4 play because of SS/GWM, Precise attack from Battlemaster was by far the most powerful option because of SS/GWM, the Archery Fighting Style was better than all the others because SS/GWM exist, a +2 weapon was much more powerful than a Flametongue because SS/GWM exist, etc.. etc... etc... those two feats skewed the entire game, affecting not just the play style of the martial that took them but also their allies. They also made getting more attacks the primary way to optimize every martial character which led to XbowXpert and PAM being unbalanced as well. Basically they created a whole vortex of combos and strategies that were never intended by the designers.
Would it be better for banishment if it didn’t affect creatures that are not from other planes of existence? Or if it affected all creatures, if they are native to the plane you are on, it is a make saves until you either succeed or fail 3 saves. And then it lasts the duration. Creatures native to another plane than the one you are on, or denizens of the outer planes, have disadvantage on the saves?
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that.
I actually totally disagree with why it was broken here. Mathematically it should have been very common for -5/+10 to not be the best option - any enemy with only a +2 bonus to AC over the standard for the party level would make SS/GWM only a better choice if you had advantage on the attack roll. The real problem with SS/GWM -5/+10 was that it caused a million and one interactions that made lots of other things in the game WAY more powerful than they were supposed to be. E.g. Bless was a good spell to cast even in tier 3 & 4 play because of SS/GWM, Precise attack from Battlemaster was by far the most powerful option because of SS/GWM, the Archery Fighting Style was better than all the others because SS/GWM exist, a +2 weapon was much more powerful than a Flametongue because SS/GWM exist, etc.. etc... etc... those two feats skewed the entire game, affecting not just the play style of the martial that took them but also their allies. They also made getting more attacks the primary way to optimize every martial character which led to XbowXpert and PAM being unbalanced as well. Basically they created a whole vortex of combos and strategies that were never intended by the designers.
I'm sorry, I think we agree more than it sounded. I just didn't go into details because my post was already long enough and I was afraid we would end up arguing over details. I still kind of want to avoid that but...
Lots of people have run the numbers, and in most situations you are actually better off using the power attack against most monsters. Bounded accuracy and relatively low monster ACs, especially on monsters with high HP, means the situation comes up a lot. Even without advantage. By the time a Fighter with just Sharpshooter and the Archery Fighting Style reaches level 5, they have around a +9 to hit against an average AC of about 15. With two attacks every round, you're better off trying it unless you're fighting a Dragon or something.
But I didn't just mean that. I also meant what you are saying. There are so many ways to get advantage, additional attacks, and attack bonuses because of the things you list. So when people are making characters, these feats are the optimal choice there as well. Building your character around such high damage output is such an advantage that all of the other options feel like you're weakening yourself too much. So all of the things you list stop being choices and start being must haves. Which is what they wanted to change. And I agree.
And on top of that, there's the first problem with how the damage jump affects the overall party and encounter balance. The feat is broken in that regard too. That part makes it harder to actually build the good CR system everyone wants.
So I agree with you. I just didn't go into enough detail to make myself clear. Sorry about that. The important part is that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are broken feats. They understand that and are trying to fix them. But people will fight back against good design corrections just because they think their favorite characters got 'nerfed.'
Maybe a War Cry that gives a small boost to the party, sacrificing your personal DPS for party DPS.
So basically like the Zealot Barbarian's 10th level feature?
Similar, but we can probably similar abilities that offer party wide buffs. Bless does a similar thing and is regarded as one of the best spells in the game.
It is encounter design 101 that if you put everything in one creature, the encounter is flawed.
Since when? Literally the entire point of legendary enemies is that they can go toe-to-toe with an entire adventuring party alone thanks to their legendary actions, lair actions etc., and there are a number of non-legendary creatures that can easily fill the same niche
Since near the beginning of 5E. Even legendary enemies with their legendary actions and lair actions don't fully compensate for the action economy advantage a full party has at their disposal. Also, said Legendary enemies have legendary resistance and high saves to avoid being completely stopped by a save or die spell. One of the most common advices for designing encounters is to have minions.
There are plenty of ways to catch up or have ranged attacks or simply have the area the encounter taking place in to make it difficult to run away. Also, in regards to Tiny Hut in specific, it is incredibly arduous because it requires a second person to set it up beforehand (the usual cast time for Tiny Hut is 1 minute which is 10 rounds) and that caster cannot leave the Tiny Hut. With Rope Trick, you would still either need a person to set it up for you or take another turn to do so yourself. Both can be countered by a simple Dispel Magic as well. Also, nothing says enemies can't climb the Rope for Rope Trick; only the entrance is invisible, not the rope.
If the trade off is bypassing an entire fight then there is nothing arduous about having one other party member out of your party of 4 help you.
You complained earlier about poor encounter design, but now you're talking about loading up enemies with dispel magic or extra ranged attacks specifically to counteract what your players can do? If you need to circumvent your players to stop them from circumventing your boss with a spell that can be taken on a whole bunch of spell lists, then the problem is with that spell, which is why it needs to be nerfed.
I don't consider any of that to be stopping players from circumventing things. A lot of that is just basic preparation. Ranged Attacks is just something everyone should have because it is the logical and smart thing to do. It also makes sense in a world filled with magic to have something like Dispel Magic on hand. At the bare minimum, anything with a modicum of intelligence should have ranged attacks on hand.
The Banishing effect in no way makes the spell too strong. There are plenty of counterplays for it if a DM really needs it. Right now, the spell is just bad. Hell, people don't use Flesh to Stone because of the multiple saves needed for it to stick; this is even worse than that as it requires 10 saves in a row.
The updated banishment doesn't require multiple saves to be useful, it achieves full effect (no enemy) after only a single failure, it only requires multiple failures to get rid of them permanently and only on enemies where that's possible. If that's really the goal you're trying to achieve then there are ways to make it harder for the enemy to succeed so that it can go through, and your DM is always free to just have the enemy fail if they want it to happen for narrative reasons, but now their enemies actually have a chance at resisting it.
Very few other spells completely take an enemy out of a fight without additional saving throws, and those that do (like hypnotic pattern or sleep), are easier to snap an enemy out of since it only requires an action, not having to go after the caster.
If the target succeeds on any of the saving throws afterwards, it is returned to the fight. I would not consider them returning after a single round to be a successful use or full effect worthy of a 4th level spell slot. I definitely would not say the current banishment is in anyway useful nor would I ever take it; it costs too much for too little of an effect. Also, DM making it happen for narrative reason is not a good reason for this nerf. These spells should only be reviewed on a RAW basis as this is UA. Enemies always had a chance to resist it as it required a save to start with.
Hypnotic Pattern is an AoE spell, meaning it can hit the entire encounter. This makes it more powerful and applicable in most cases. Sleep until it becomes outdated, again can hit multiple targets and at those low levels can also just end the fight, making it stronger than a single target removal.
It's not a matter of being willing to help, it is a matter of taking two people out of the fight when it comes to Tiny Hut.
If taking two people out of the fight takes a much worse enemy out of the fight then it's a simple trade off, and as I've pointed out multiple times tiny hut is the least convenient of the options, it just happens to be an option. I'm wishing I hadn't mentioned that one now as you seem to be fixating upon it.
I also provided counter plays to your Rope Trick combo as well. Also, they can achieve similar results with Resilient Sphere and Rope Trick as Resilient Sphere. Also, from my experience, taking out 2 people from your side to take out one target on their side is generally not worth it. Unless the encounter put too many of its eggs in the one removed enemies; which I say would be more of a flaw in the encounter.
Again, if your encounter design relies that heavily on one singular creature to the point where it falls apart to a single CC effect, that is more on the encounter design.
Again you're blaming DM's for an abusable spell, but your argument is essentially that DMs should painstakingly design every encounter around nerfing everything their players might want to do as an alternative. There are plenty of iconic enemies in D&D that shouldn't (and don't) require minions to be threatening, but if you can't run them as intended if your party has a certain spell then the problem is with the spell not the encounter.
I disagree on the idea that the spell is abusable when common counterplays exist. There isn't any painstaking design. Having ranged attacks on hand to break concentration on enemies running away isn't painstaking design. Logically, anyone with the semblance of sentience should have some sort of ranged attack because ranged attacks are simply safer. Proper tactics doesn't involve people rushing into melee, people would logically avoid melee unless absolutely necessary. Why move into range your enemies where they can deal the most damage to you when you can poke at them from a safe distance?
5E's design in general necessitated the use of minions. That has always been the case. Even without spells like Banishment, the action economy advantage a single party holds over a single entity, even if they have legendary and lair actions, is immense. The problem with that is not with spells like Banishment, but how 5E's action economy is designed in of itself.
Plenty of other spells can remove creatures from fights, multiples at a time; hypnotic pattern for example. Cause Fear, Command can do it for a round as a 1st level spell. On the martial side of things, Monks can do it with Stunning Strike. Removing something from a fight for a round is not something to write home about.
None of these remove the enemy from the fight, the enemy is still there, and none of them can permanently remove it. Command is extremely limited in what it can actually force the creature to do, and it won't prevent reactions etc., cause fear doesn't take an enemy out of a fight at all, it just debuffs its attacks/checks, hypnotic pattern targets a more commonly proficient save and it is a lot easier for allies to snap an enemy out of it, meanwhile Stunning Strike requires you to hit first and beat one of the most commonly proficient saves.
The advantage of current banishment is that high Charisma with proficiency is uncommon, and the only way to bring the enemy back is to attack the caster directly in the hopes of breaking their concentration which isn't always possible to guarantee even if the caster just stands there and lets you hit them, as many casters are built to make breaking concentration as hard as possible. The proposed update to banishment still has these same advantages, it just isn't arguably worth the 4th-level slot anymore, but mechanically it's still a good (3rd-level) spell.
My mistake on Cause Fear, I meant the Fear spell. My point still stands with the Fear spell, not Cause Fear.
Command effectively removes an enemy for a turn as it takes away its entire turn. It may still have its reaction, but in most cases, taking away their entire turn is effectively removes them from the fight for a round. Telling them to flee for example, will likely move it out of range of meaningful reactions and arguably can also provoke attacks of opportunity, as it may dash instead of disengaging if it is in melee.
Also, while wisdom is common among player characters and charisma uncommon, it is not always that clear with enemies. Devils for example often have pretty high charisma. Hypnotic Pattern hits in an AoE, meaning it is possible to hit entire groups of enemies. If you can hit enough enemies, the encounter is essentially over if your party can keep the remaining ones in check. The new banishment is just a flat out bad spell, not even as a 3rd level spell is it good. It is just a flat out bad spell.
If the spell was that broken, then how are people managing with it right now?
They're not; either their DMs have to do what you suggest and do extra work to counteract their players, run it as-is and it's a disappointing encounter because a single spell ended it early, or the players might rein it in themselves if they start to find encounters boring if they become too easy.
And to be clear, the point isn't that the spell is unstoppable; you still need that initial failed save, but unlike similar spells maintaining it is a lot easier as the only way to end it early is to break concentration, unlike other spells that allow repeated saves or have other ways to end them. This difference is probably why it was 4th-level to begin with, but that alone doesn't balance it because when it does work it can be so much more powerful.
Compare it for example to hold monster which is 5th-level, but an enemy can break free of it on its own or break concentration. While the paralyzed condition offers extra opportunities to deal damage that banishment doesn't, if what you need from it is to stop the enemy attacking it's actually a lot worse because it's a higher level slot and with a more unpredictable duration.
They definitely are managing right now. The DMs for the groups I've seen didn't have to do any extra work. They are able to use existing resources to provide the counter play. The players in these groups didn't rein things in either, they well all out.
Hold Monster's Paralyze condition is incredibly powerful. The moment something is paralyzed, even if for one round, it is likely as good as dead. In most games I've seen, the moment a monster is paralyzed, it is probably going to take 100+ damage before it gets another save.
I'd say Spiritual Weapons is fine, same with Banishment. They currently feel good to use. Rather than nerfing things, I'd say buffing things to match is the better solution; this includes buffing martials as well.
This kind of thinking is bad for the game, if everything can only become more powerful and nothing can ever be nerfed then you get spiraling increases in power and unless you have the latest book your character is useless, and DMs are constantly having to homebrew monsters to keep up with player power levels. I know I already give Dispel Magic and / or Counterspell to every caster monster because of the explosion of availability of magic to all kinds of character builds. I routinely see parties that are at least 75% full spellcasters, so a combat without at least one monster with Dispel Magic or Counterspell is not a combat, it is just a spell-slot tax as any enemy that is an actual threat is crowd-controlled into oblivion - mainly by Banishment, Hypnotic Pattern, and Wall of Force.
Alternatively, I could just do what one of my DMs does which is cheat the dice and give every enemy Magic Resistance so that no monster above a minion ever fails a saving throw. This latter case is probably why people 'feel' like the change for monsters to fail saves is so low. RAW monsters have ~50% chance to fail a saving throw throughout the game, but in practice DMs cheat those saves all the time because crowd-control spells and abilities are too easily available and too powerful.
It isn't bad for the game if you don't have splat books power creep to begin with. Ideally splat books should be offering options that are equal in power to existing options, not stronger options. The issue you have is with power creep and if we keep power creep in check, then buffing options to provide more options would definitely work. Also, I have seen DM's not need to homebrew enemies and yet are still able to handle min/maxed caster characters, and none of them had to cheat the dice or anything like that.
I'd say Spiritual Weapons is fine, same with Banishment. They currently feel good to use. Rather than nerfing things, I'd say buffing things to match is the better solution; this includes buffing martials as well.
This kind of thinking is bad for the game, if everything can only become more powerful and nothing can ever be nerfed then you get spiraling increases in power and unless you have the latest book your character is useless, and DMs are constantly having to homebrew monsters to keep up with player power levels. I know I already give Dispel Magic and / or Counterspell to every caster monster because of the explosion of availability of magic to all kinds of character builds. I routinely see parties that are at least 75% full spellcasters, so a combat without at least one monster with Dispel Magic or Counterspell is not a combat, it is just a spell-slot tax as any enemy that is an actual threat is crowd-controlled into oblivion - mainly by Banishment, Hypnotic Pattern, and Wall of Force.
Alternatively, I could just do what one of my DMs does which is cheat the dice and give every enemy Magic Resistance so that no monster above a minion ever fails a saving throw. This latter case is probably why people 'feel' like the change for monsters to fail saves is so low. RAW monsters have ~50% chance to fail a saving throw throughout the game, but in practice DMs cheat those saves all the time because crowd-control spells and abilities are too easily available and too powerful.
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that.
I actually totally disagree with why it was broken here. Mathematically it should have been very common for -5/+10 to not be the best option - any enemy with only a +2 bonus to AC over the standard for the party level would make SS/GWM only a better choice if you had advantage on the attack roll. The real problem with SS/GWM -5/+10 was that it caused a million and one interactions that made lots of other things in the game WAY more powerful than they were supposed to be. E.g. Bless was a good spell to cast even in tier 3 & 4 play because of SS/GWM, Precise attack from Battlemaster was by far the most powerful option because of SS/GWM, the Archery Fighting Style was better than all the others because SS/GWM exist, a +2 weapon was much more powerful than a Flametongue because SS/GWM exist, etc.. etc... etc... those two feats skewed the entire game, affecting not just the play style of the martial that took them but also their allies. They also made getting more attacks the primary way to optimize every martial character which led to XbowXpert and PAM being unbalanced as well. Basically they created a whole vortex of combos and strategies that were never intended by the designers.
Those combos are what were letting martials keep up with casters to begin with and honestly, I disagree with the idea that they were a mistake. Players should be comboing different things together to begin with. Also, bless was good even without SS/GWM; it is just straight up good in general. We should have kept the +10/-5 and simply added more comparable options so that they weren't the only option.
Pathfinder 2e looks like a lot of work went into it. The starter box set is fantastic. But I never want to play that game personally. And I really don't want DnD to turn into it. DMs need good guidance and tools. Players need freedom. It's what sets TTRPGs apart from video games.
This concept is what is important. Not every good idea will fit in the puzzle that makes up the dnd system. The action economy of p2e isn't the same and that's actually an appeal for some. The balance isn't the same and that's OK. Dms having one spell ruining an encounter and the narrative behind it shows dm related problems that built up over 5e's history. Dms needed to know how to interact with such features. The new glossary helps but some of the other changes distill out nuances and create new issues.
In particular the "mother may I mechanics" wouldn't have been such a problem if wotc actually gave the advice dms needed.
Party intrest Encounters and fail forward options for story development are also really good things that have been left out by wotc in spite of requests. If a clear understanding of these ideas were regularly spread.... Banishment, guidance, situational or ribbon abilities never become problems an instead become interesting play features.
Yeah, that's what I meant by DMs need better advice and tools.
Pathfinder isn't for me, for a lot of reasons that aren't important to this discussion. But a major reason is that I think it has too many rules, tables, and calculations that don't really add anything to the game or change the outcome of an encounter enough to be worth it. I've played many games like it and I just personally prefer stripping away all of the mechanical mess possible if the same outcome can be achieved more elegantly.
But yes, the important thing is that DMs need the tools to understand and run the game well.
But some spells and powers are just going to be broken. Maybe not this one, but they do exist. You can't buff everyone else to match a broken feature. You have to fix it. And fixing a few broken things is so much better than just upgrading everything to match them.
There are certain things that do need a 'buff.' And there are things that need fixed too, even if it feels like a 'nerf.' It’s just my opinion obviously, but I don't want every class to get progressively stronger and more broken just to try to match the few things that are already broken.
But I have a feeling that most people are going to complain if any ability they like to use gets fixed, because they'll think their favorite is getting 'nerfed.' Lore Bard losing that Magical Secrets might not be a good decision. Or it might end up being great for balance and fixing a problem that would occur in the context of the new classes and spell selection rules.
I complained that Thieves should still get to Use an Object with Cunning Action. I think it was a mistake taking their coolest feature. But I understand why they did it. It was broken because it wasn't clear. I would prefer it come back, just with more limitations and cleary defined uses. It will still be a nerf, but it will be a good fix of a broken ability.
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that. Spiritual Weapon is in that same realm of broken. I don't know that this is the right fix without testing it yet. But it does need a fix.
I honestly haven't really found a spell that was outright broken and I never found Spiritual Weapon to be in any realm of broken. I also believe the Sharpshooter and GWM nerf was also wrong as it severely nerfed martials. If the issue was because it was always the optimal choice, then the solution is not to nerf it but to buff other things to add more choices.
What exactly could be buffed to be as good of a choice as "Get +10 to your damage with no limitations on how many times you can do it"?
How about getting additional options that allow for more crowd control for one. Cleaving attacks to hit multiple enemies with a single attack. Maybe stances that offer various bonuses, like maybe something that offered both to hit and damage, but smaller numbers obviously. Maybe a War Cry that gives a small boost to the party, sacrificing your personal DPS for party DPS. Plenty of ways to to around it, especially when the +10 to damage comes with a -5 to hit.
I still don't understand why increasing the power of everything else is a better answer than just fixing a few broken abilities. And just for clarity, when I say broken I don't mean just 'OP.' I mean broken in the sense that they constantly skew gameplay in one direction, or cause some spells or feats to be used all the time, or make encounter balance more difficult, or trip up new players and DMs. Dnd 5e is a really good system. You can count the broken parts on a few hands. It's so much better to just fix those parts.
We're probably just going to disagree on this, and that's fine. This is totally just my personal option obviously.
But if WotC decides to fix every problem by just power creeping every spell, feat, and class to meet the worst offenders, then it would be a massive turn off for me. That would probably make me check out. Fortunately they don't seem to have that in mind. They appear to see many of the real problems and are focusing on addressing them individually. The question is whether we, in the surveys, will let them do it. Or will enough people hate anything they see as a 'nerf' that nothing gets fixed? We'll probably know when the results of the Experts package come back. Worst case scenario, those handful of broken spells, feats, etc just stay broken. I can house rule fixes myself. It would be a big missed opportunity, but there's nothing I can do except voice my opinions too.
But some spells and powers are just going to be broken. Maybe not this one, but they do exist. You can't buff everyone else to match a broken feature. You have to fix it. And fixing a few broken things is so much better than just upgrading everything to match them.
There are certain things that do need a 'buff.' And there are things that need fixed too, even if it feels like a 'nerf.' It’s just my opinion obviously, but I don't want every class to get progressively stronger and more broken just to try to match the few things that are already broken.
But I have a feeling that most people are going to complain if any ability they like to use gets fixed, because they'll think their favorite is getting 'nerfed.' Lore Bard losing that Magical Secrets might not be a good decision. Or it might end up being great for balance and fixing a problem that would occur in the context of the new classes and spell selection rules.
I complained that Thieves should still get to Use an Object with Cunning Action. I think it was a mistake taking their coolest feature. But I understand why they did it. It was broken because it wasn't clear. I would prefer it come back, just with more limitations and cleary defined uses. It will still be a nerf, but it will be a good fix of a broken ability.
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that. Spiritual Weapon is in that same realm of broken. I don't know that this is the right fix without testing it yet. But it does need a fix.
I honestly haven't really found a spell that was outright broken and I never found Spiritual Weapon to be in any realm of broken. I also believe the Sharpshooter and GWM nerf was also wrong as it severely nerfed martials. If the issue was because it was always the optimal choice, then the solution is not to nerf it but to buff other things to add more choices.
What exactly could be buffed to be as good of a choice as "Get +10 to your damage with no limitations on how many times you can do it"?
How about getting additional options that allow for more crowd control for one. Cleaving attacks to hit multiple enemies with a single attack. Maybe stances that offer various bonuses, like maybe something that offered both to hit and damage, but smaller numbers obviously. Maybe a War Cry that gives a small boost to the party, sacrificing your personal DPS for party DPS. Plenty of ways to to around it, especially when the +10 to damage comes with a -5 to hit.
I still don't understand why increasing the power of everything else is a better answer than just fixing a few broken abilities. And just for clarity, when I say broken I don't mean just 'OP.' I mean broken in the sense that they constantly skew gameplay in one direction, or cause some spells or feats to be used all the time, or make encounter balance more difficult, or trip up new players and DMs. Dnd 5e is a really good system. You can count the broken parts on a few hands. It's so much better to just fix those parts.
We're probably just going to disagree on this, and that's fine. This is totally just my personal option obviously.
But if WotC decides to fix every problem by just power creeping every spell, feat, and class to meet the worst offenders, then it would be a massive turn off for me. That would probably make me check out. Fortunately they don't seem to have that in mind. They appear to see many of the real problems and are focusing on addressing them individually. The question is whether we, in the surveys, will let them do it. Or will enough people hate anything they see as a 'nerf' that nothing gets fixed? We'll probably know when the results of the Experts package come back. Worst case scenario, those handful of broken spells, feats, etc just stay broken. I can house rule fixes myself. It would be a big missed opportunity, but there's nothing I can do except voice my opinions too.
Even if that is the case was banishment broken? In optimizer circles its not considered a good spell as single target save or suck spells far too often end up being a totally wasted action. While spiritual weapon probably is now more in line with other similar spells was it really broken before?
I'm trying to avoid super long quotes (they are awful to view on my phone), so this reply is to MyDudeicus.
I don't know how broken Banishment and Spiritual Weapon are currently. But WotC seems to think so. So they are attempting to fix them. And again, when I say 'broken' I don't just mean too strong.
Optimizers pick things that are strong. But abilities can be broken for other reasons like I listed. Optimizers don't pick Banishment because it doesn't fit their math. That's a whole different rabbit hole to go down opinions on optimizer methods.... They do pick Spiritual Weapon because it's powerful.
If I had to guess why they feel Banishment is broken, it's because it is relatively easy to just end an encounter immediately. Encounters that, if they involve extra-planer creatures, were probably meant to be tough. It's disappointing and anticlimactic a lot of times. And the only solution requires DMs to change their encounters to try to negate the spell. That's rough for new DMs to understand, hard to account for in any CR encounter builder, and isn't really fun for anyone anyway.
If I had to guess why Spiritual Weapon is broken, it's because it's so good it's always used, and might interact weird with future plans they have for the action economy.
I'm not saying that I personally find these spells to be horribly broken, though I do agree they need some work. And I'm not saying that their fixes in this UA are the right ones. I have opinions on better fixes myself.
All I'm trying to say is that I think we have to be open to changes. Otherwise we might as well just keep playing 5e. And if everyone's reactions to any change that feels like a 'nerf' is to downvote it away, we'll never get to see what an improvement might look like. We'll never get a chance to see what a world without Spiritual Weapons flying around all the time could be. How many other cool options a Cleric might have for different playstyles. Or how an actually functional CR system might look.
But some spells and powers are just going to be broken. Maybe not this one, but they do exist. You can't buff everyone else to match a broken feature. You have to fix it. And fixing a few broken things is so much better than just upgrading everything to match them.
There are certain things that do need a 'buff.' And there are things that need fixed too, even if it feels like a 'nerf.' It’s just my opinion obviously, but I don't want every class to get progressively stronger and more broken just to try to match the few things that are already broken.
But I have a feeling that most people are going to complain if any ability they like to use gets fixed, because they'll think their favorite is getting 'nerfed.' Lore Bard losing that Magical Secrets might not be a good decision. Or it might end up being great for balance and fixing a problem that would occur in the context of the new classes and spell selection rules.
I complained that Thieves should still get to Use an Object with Cunning Action. I think it was a mistake taking their coolest feature. But I understand why they did it. It was broken because it wasn't clear. I would prefer it come back, just with more limitations and cleary defined uses. It will still be a nerf, but it will be a good fix of a broken ability.
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that. Spiritual Weapon is in that same realm of broken. I don't know that this is the right fix without testing it yet. But it does need a fix.
I honestly haven't really found a spell that was outright broken and I never found Spiritual Weapon to be in any realm of broken. I also believe the Sharpshooter and GWM nerf was also wrong as it severely nerfed martials. If the issue was because it was always the optimal choice, then the solution is not to nerf it but to buff other things to add more choices.
What exactly could be buffed to be as good of a choice as "Get +10 to your damage with no limitations on how many times you can do it"?
How about getting additional options that allow for more crowd control for one. Cleaving attacks to hit multiple enemies with a single attack. Maybe stances that offer various bonuses, like maybe something that offered both to hit and damage, but smaller numbers obviously. Maybe a War Cry that gives a small boost to the party, sacrificing your personal DPS for party DPS. Plenty of ways to to around it, especially when the +10 to damage comes with a -5 to hit.
I still don't understand why increasing the power of everything else is a better answer than just fixing a few broken abilities. And just for clarity, when I say broken I don't mean just 'OP.' I mean broken in the sense that they constantly skew gameplay in one direction, or cause some spells or feats to be used all the time, or make encounter balance more difficult, or trip up new players and DMs. Dnd 5e is a really good system. You can count the broken parts on a few hands. It's so much better to just fix those parts.
We're probably just going to disagree on this, and that's fine. This is totally just my personal option obviously.
But if WotC decides to fix every problem by just power creeping every spell, feat, and class to meet the worst offenders, then it would be a massive turn off for me. That would probably make me check out. Fortunately they don't seem to have that in mind. They appear to see many of the real problems and are focusing on addressing them individually. The question is whether we, in the surveys, will let them do it. Or will enough people hate anything they see as a 'nerf' that nothing gets fixed? We'll probably know when the results of the Experts package come back. Worst case scenario, those handful of broken spells, feats, etc just stay broken. I can house rule fixes myself. It would be a big missed opportunity, but there's nothing I can do except voice my opinions too.
First, these nerfs just makes these spells feel bad to use. Banishment is just straight up not worth using and Spiritual Weapon will probably not be looked at once Spirit Guardians is available.
Also, it is a lot more than a few "offenders." Feats like GWM, SS, PAM, etc. were what were letting martials keep up to begin with. Without them, you are going to have to hit so many more spells, essentially nerfing magic to the ground completely.
Casters are strong because of their versatility. Martials were keeping up because things like GWM and SS let them keep up DPS wise while casters handled crowd control. Casters have a huge amount of options even after losing spells like Banishment and Spiritual Weapons; nothing is being solved at the moment, just options being taken away.
Like I said, these fixes for Banishment and Spiritual Weapon might not be the right choices. I don't even think they are the best fixes. But I do want to be open to fixes in general.
Martials might currently be using GWM and Sharpshooter to keep up with casters, but it's at the expense of actually using any other options. And we have no idea what the new Martial abilities are going to be. They might get all kinds of cool new abilities and weapon options. Something like GWM might even be built into the Heavy weapon property. They might not need these old feats at all going forward. Which would be a great thing to give those characters more freedom of builds.
That is one of the problems with the way they are rolling out the UAs, which I've also said before. We only have part of the picture. They're showing us a change and asking what we think, but we don't know how to answer. So people get all worried that they won't get to do big damage anymore because we won't get the Warriors UA for months, and they react to that alone. Everything that feels like a nerf gets canned.
But if they're going to fix the perceived martial/caster problem, and make a better game for new players and DMs, and build a CR system that works, they have to change things. And part of that change will mean scaling damage better, or changing spells, etc. They just need to be better at presenting it in a way that tells us where it's all headed.
I think the change to Spiritual Weapon follows the thread where they talk about choosing between being a melee OR a spell cleric. It seems like they are envisioning one path where your damage is coming from your weapon and a second path where your damage is coming from your spells.
They should just take the hit penalty = damage bonus part of GWM and SS and roll them into the basic rules as a “called shot” with an Attack penalty = PB, and a damage bonus = 2×PB. That way one wouldn’t need a feat for that and it would open things up for more interesting builds.
I think the change to Spiritual Weapon follows the thread where they talk about choosing between being a melee OR a spell cleric. It seems like they are envisioning one path where your damage is coming from your weapon and a second path where your damage is coming from your spells.
They always did. That’s why some domains grant Potent Spellcasting at 8h level, and others grant Divine Strike.
I honestly haven't really found a spell that was outright broken and I never found Spiritual Weapon to be in any realm of broken. I also believe the Sharpshooter and GWM nerf was also wrong as it severely nerfed martials. If the issue was because it was always the optimal choice, then the solution is not to nerf it but to buff other things to add more choices.
It is encounter design 101 that if you put everything in one creature, the encounter is flawed. Action Economy alone makes this an issue. Also, I wouldn't call using a 4th level spell trivial. However, singular high level CR's have never really been a challenge against a group of experienced players.
There are plenty of ways to catch up or have ranged attacks or simply have the area the encounter taking place in to make it difficult to run away. Also, in regards to Tiny Hut in specific, it is incredibly arduous because it requires a second person to set it up beforehand (the usual cast time for Tiny Hut is 1 minute which is 10 rounds) and that caster cannot leave the Tiny Hut. With Rope Trick, you would still either need a person to set it up for you or take another turn to do so yourself. Both can be countered by a simple Dispel Magic as well. Also, nothing says enemies can't climb the Rope for Rope Trick; only the entrance is invisible, not the rope.
Plenty of other spells can remove creatures from fights, multiples at a time; hypnotic pattern for example. Cause Fear, Command can do it for a round as a 1st level spell. On the martial side of things, Monks can do it with Stunning Strike. Removing something from a fight for a round is not something to write home about.
The Banishing effect in no way makes the spell too strong. There are plenty of counterplays for it if a DM really needs it. Right now, the spell is just bad. Hell, people don't use Flesh to Stone because of the multiple saves needed for it to stick; this is even worse than that as it requires 10 saves in a row.
It's not a matter of being willing to help, it is a matter of taking two people out of the fight when it comes to Tiny Hut. Again, if your encounter design relies that heavily on one singular creature to the point where it falls apart to a single CC effect, that is more on the encounter design. The other parts of the encounter should be threatening on their own if this is supposed to be a huge encounter. Rope Trick is its own setup, and as I stated before has its counter plays.
If the spell was that broken, then how are people managing with it right now? There are people playing 5E with these spells in their current state just fine. People are managing with them. Every group I've been in, and many of them include some of the sweatiest players around, have managed to play games from 1 to 20 with these spells just fine. We don't hold back on using them and go all out.
That's my biggest problem with a lot of things that have been suggested as combat abilities for Martials especially. The more you define an action as an explicit option to be taken by a class, the more you exclude it from everyone else. This is fine when you're talking about magic. A normal person wouldn't be expected to be able to swing a sword and make green flames jump from it to multiple people. But a normal person should be able to try to disarm someone. Even if they're bad at it.
I've been informed lately that some people really need these explicit rules. Their DMs won't let them try things without an ability listed on their character for it. I have sympathy for them being in that situation. But there has to be an answer that works for everyone. Even if it means listing a lot of basic combat maneuvers that anyone can attempt. Things that Martials get a bonus at.
Pathfinder 2e looks like a lot of work went into it. The starter box set is fantastic. But I never want to play that game personally. And I really don't want DnD to turn into it. DMs need good guidance and tools. Players need freedom. It's what sets TTRPGs apart from video games.
That is the thing, if you are trained in deception you can do a feint attack, no feat required. Recall knowledge is an action anyone can take. So on and so forth. The ability you are talking about allows the person to attack AND take the recall knowledge action with the same action so if you hit you basically get a free action to recall knowledge, so you can do damage AND learn about your foe in the same action. The game works on a 3 action system where everything you do is an action, moving, attacking, using a skill, interacting with objects. Spells are balanced by each component being an action to do. So if a spell has a verbal and somatic component you need 2 actions to cast it, but none of the things are locked behind feats. You can run, jump, demoralize (intimidate), feint, recall knowledge what ever you want as an action. The feat system just allows you to expand upon that further. There is even a multi-attack penalty that encourages someone to do more than just attack a bunch on their turn as each attack is less accurate after the first.
In this case normally on your turn you could recall knowledge as an action to learn about your foe, move to get close to your foe and then attack. No feat required. With this feat you could walk up to the foe as one action, second action attack, if you hit you get recall knowledge for free and now you have a 3rd action you can use to demoralize or fient to set your buddy up for his turn, disengage from the opponent, make another attack with the multi-attack penalty, maybe even trip...... The feat just frees up an action, it does not mean you can't recall knowledge normally.
Edit: to Stego's point in 2e, anyone can try to disarm if they want, or trip, or shove, feint (but I think you need to be at least trained in deception), demoralize (as long as the person can see and hear you, even easier if they can understand you). So on and so forth. Yes, many of them are defined, but technically anything you want could fall under a skill action. It is just a question if your DM would require that to be a skill you are trained in or not.
Edit 2: anyway a little off-topic. but just looking at a single feat without looking at the rest of the system is a not a good way to judge a system. Check out some vids by Nonat 1 and the like. Things are much more free form and less rules intensive than first glance would suggest.
Edit 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGaOdIRljvQ Check this out, it may give a better idea of the system by just a tad (though his understanding of balance is way off which is funny).
How about getting additional options that allow for more crowd control for one. Cleaving attacks to hit multiple enemies with a single attack. Maybe stances that offer various bonuses, like maybe something that offered both to hit and damage, but smaller numbers obviously. Maybe a War Cry that gives a small boost to the party, sacrificing your personal DPS for party DPS. Plenty of ways to to around it, especially when the +10 to damage comes with a -5 to hit.
This concept is what is important. Not every good idea will fit in the puzzle that makes up the dnd system. The action economy of p2e isn't the same and that's actually an appeal for some. The balance isn't the same and that's OK. Dms having one spell ruining an encounter and the narrative behind it shows dm related problems that built up over 5e's history. Dms needed to know how to interact with such features. The new glossary helps but some of the other changes distill out nuances and create new issues.
In particular the "mother may I mechanics" wouldn't have been such a problem if wotc actually gave the advice dms needed.
Party intrest Encounters and fail forward options for story development are also really good things that have been left out by wotc in spite of requests. If a clear understanding of these ideas were regularly spread.... Banishment, guidance, situational or ribbon abilities never become problems an instead become interesting play features.
Since when? Literally the entire point of legendary enemies is that they can go toe-to-toe with an entire adventuring party alone thanks to their legendary actions, lair actions etc., and there are a number of non-legendary creatures that can easily fill the same niche.
It's trivial if it's the only spell you need to cast in the entire fight.
If the trade off is bypassing an entire fight then there is nothing arduous about having one other party member out of your party of 4 help you.
You complained earlier about poor encounter design, but now you're talking about loading up enemies with dispel magic or extra ranged attacks specifically to counteract what your players can do? If you need to circumvent your players to stop them from circumventing your boss with a spell that can be taken on a whole bunch of spell lists, then the problem is with that spell, which is why it needs to be nerfed.
None of these remove the enemy from the fight, the enemy is still there, and none of them can permanently remove it. Command is extremely limited in what it can actually force the creature to do, and it won't prevent reactions etc., cause fear doesn't take an enemy out of a fight at all, it just debuffs its attacks/checks, hypnotic pattern targets a more commonly proficient save and it is a lot easier for allies to snap an enemy out of it, meanwhile Stunning Strike requires you to hit first and beat one of the most commonly proficient saves.
The advantage of current banishment is that high Charisma with proficiency is uncommon, and the only way to bring the enemy back is to attack the caster directly in the hopes of breaking their concentration which isn't always possible to guarantee even if the caster just stands there and lets you hit them, as many casters are built to make breaking concentration as hard as possible. The proposed update to banishment still has these same advantages, it just isn't arguably worth the 4th-level slot anymore, but mechanically it's still a good (3rd-level) spell.
The updated banishment doesn't require multiple saves to be useful, it achieves full effect (no enemy) after only a single failure, it only requires multiple failures to get rid of them permanently and only on enemies where that's possible. If that's really the goal you're trying to achieve then there are ways to make it harder for the enemy to succeed so that it can go through, and your DM is always free to just have the enemy fail if they want it to happen for narrative reasons, but now their enemies actually have a chance at resisting it.
Very few other spells completely take an enemy out of a fight without additional saving throws, and those that do (like hypnotic pattern or sleep), are easier to snap an enemy out of since it only requires an action, not having to go after the caster.
If taking two people out of the fight takes a much worse enemy out of the fight then it's a simple trade off, and as I've pointed out multiple times tiny hut is the least convenient of the options, it just happens to be an option. I'm wishing I hadn't mentioned that one now as you seem to be fixating upon it.
Again you're blaming DM's for an abusable spell, but your argument is essentially that DMs should painstakingly design every encounter around nerfing everything their players might want to do as an alternative. There are plenty of iconic enemies in D&D that shouldn't (and don't) require minions to be threatening, but if you can't run them as intended if your party has a certain spell then the problem is with the spell not the encounter.
They're not; either their DMs have to do what you suggest and do extra work to counteract their players, run it as-is and it's a disappointing encounter because a single spell ended it early, or the players might rein it in themselves if they start to find encounters boring if they become too easy.
And to be clear, the point isn't that the spell is unstoppable; you still need that initial failed save, but unlike similar spells maintaining it is a lot easier as the only way to end it early is to break concentration, unlike other spells that allow repeated saves or have other ways to end them. This difference is probably why it was 4th-level to begin with, but that alone doesn't balance it because when it does work it can be so much more powerful.
Compare it for example to hold monster which is 5th-level, but an enemy can break free of it on its own or concentration can be broken. While the paralyzed condition offers extra opportunities to deal damage that banishment doesn't, if what you need from it is to stop the enemy attacking it's actually a lot worse because it's a higher level slot and with a more unpredictable duration.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This kind of thinking is bad for the game, if everything can only become more powerful and nothing can ever be nerfed then you get spiraling increases in power and unless you have the latest book your character is useless, and DMs are constantly having to homebrew monsters to keep up with player power levels. I know I already give Dispel Magic and / or Counterspell to every caster monster because of the explosion of availability of magic to all kinds of character builds. I routinely see parties that are at least 75% full spellcasters, so a combat without at least one monster with Dispel Magic or Counterspell is not a combat, it is just a spell-slot tax as any enemy that is an actual threat is crowd-controlled into oblivion - mainly by Banishment, Hypnotic Pattern, and Wall of Force.
Alternatively, I could just do what one of my DMs does which is cheat the dice and give every enemy Magic Resistance so that no monster above a minion ever fails a saving throw. This latter case is probably why people 'feel' like the change for monsters to fail saves is so low. RAW monsters have ~50% chance to fail a saving throw throughout the game, but in practice DMs cheat those saves all the time because crowd-control spells and abilities are too easily available and too powerful.
I actually totally disagree with why it was broken here. Mathematically it should have been very common for -5/+10 to not be the best option - any enemy with only a +2 bonus to AC over the standard for the party level would make SS/GWM only a better choice if you had advantage on the attack roll. The real problem with SS/GWM -5/+10 was that it caused a million and one interactions that made lots of other things in the game WAY more powerful than they were supposed to be. E.g. Bless was a good spell to cast even in tier 3 & 4 play because of SS/GWM, Precise attack from Battlemaster was by far the most powerful option because of SS/GWM, the Archery Fighting Style was better than all the others because SS/GWM exist, a +2 weapon was much more powerful than a Flametongue because SS/GWM exist, etc.. etc... etc... those two feats skewed the entire game, affecting not just the play style of the martial that took them but also their allies. They also made getting more attacks the primary way to optimize every martial character which led to XbowXpert and PAM being unbalanced as well. Basically they created a whole vortex of combos and strategies that were never intended by the designers.
Would it be better for banishment if it didn’t affect creatures that are not from other planes of existence? Or if it affected all creatures, if they are native to the plane you are on, it is a make saves until you either succeed or fail 3 saves. And then it lasts the duration. Creatures native to another plane than the one you are on, or denizens of the outer planes, have disadvantage on the saves?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'm sorry, I think we agree more than it sounded. I just didn't go into details because my post was already long enough and I was afraid we would end up arguing over details. I still kind of want to avoid that but...
Lots of people have run the numbers, and in most situations you are actually better off using the power attack against most monsters. Bounded accuracy and relatively low monster ACs, especially on monsters with high HP, means the situation comes up a lot. Even without advantage. By the time a Fighter with just Sharpshooter and the Archery Fighting Style reaches level 5, they have around a +9 to hit against an average AC of about 15. With two attacks every round, you're better off trying it unless you're fighting a Dragon or something.
But I didn't just mean that. I also meant what you are saying. There are so many ways to get advantage, additional attacks, and attack bonuses because of the things you list. So when people are making characters, these feats are the optimal choice there as well. Building your character around such high damage output is such an advantage that all of the other options feel like you're weakening yourself too much. So all of the things you list stop being choices and start being must haves. Which is what they wanted to change. And I agree.
And on top of that, there's the first problem with how the damage jump affects the overall party and encounter balance. The feat is broken in that regard too. That part makes it harder to actually build the good CR system everyone wants.
So I agree with you. I just didn't go into enough detail to make myself clear. Sorry about that. The important part is that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are broken feats. They understand that and are trying to fix them. But people will fight back against good design corrections just because they think their favorite characters got 'nerfed.'
Similar, but we can probably similar abilities that offer party wide buffs. Bless does a similar thing and is regarded as one of the best spells in the game.
Since near the beginning of 5E. Even legendary enemies with their legendary actions and lair actions don't fully compensate for the action economy advantage a full party has at their disposal. Also, said Legendary enemies have legendary resistance and high saves to avoid being completely stopped by a save or die spell. One of the most common advices for designing encounters is to have minions.
What about later encounter in the day? That 4th level slot is no longer there for the next encounter.
I don't consider any of that to be stopping players from circumventing things. A lot of that is just basic preparation. Ranged Attacks is just something everyone should have because it is the logical and smart thing to do. It also makes sense in a world filled with magic to have something like Dispel Magic on hand. At the bare minimum, anything with a modicum of intelligence should have ranged attacks on hand.
If the target succeeds on any of the saving throws afterwards, it is returned to the fight. I would not consider them returning after a single round to be a successful use or full effect worthy of a 4th level spell slot. I definitely would not say the current banishment is in anyway useful nor would I ever take it; it costs too much for too little of an effect. Also, DM making it happen for narrative reason is not a good reason for this nerf. These spells should only be reviewed on a RAW basis as this is UA. Enemies always had a chance to resist it as it required a save to start with.
Hypnotic Pattern is an AoE spell, meaning it can hit the entire encounter. This makes it more powerful and applicable in most cases. Sleep until it becomes outdated, again can hit multiple targets and at those low levels can also just end the fight, making it stronger than a single target removal.
I also provided counter plays to your Rope Trick combo as well. Also, they can achieve similar results with Resilient Sphere and Rope Trick as Resilient Sphere. Also, from my experience, taking out 2 people from your side to take out one target on their side is generally not worth it. Unless the encounter put too many of its eggs in the one removed enemies; which I say would be more of a flaw in the encounter.
I disagree on the idea that the spell is abusable when common counterplays exist. There isn't any painstaking design. Having ranged attacks on hand to break concentration on enemies running away isn't painstaking design. Logically, anyone with the semblance of sentience should have some sort of ranged attack because ranged attacks are simply safer. Proper tactics doesn't involve people rushing into melee, people would logically avoid melee unless absolutely necessary. Why move into range your enemies where they can deal the most damage to you when you can poke at them from a safe distance?
5E's design in general necessitated the use of minions. That has always been the case. Even without spells like Banishment, the action economy advantage a single party holds over a single entity, even if they have legendary and lair actions, is immense. The problem with that is not with spells like Banishment, but how 5E's action economy is designed in of itself.
My mistake on Cause Fear, I meant the Fear spell. My point still stands with the Fear spell, not Cause Fear.
Command effectively removes an enemy for a turn as it takes away its entire turn. It may still have its reaction, but in most cases, taking away their entire turn is effectively removes them from the fight for a round. Telling them to flee for example, will likely move it out of range of meaningful reactions and arguably can also provoke attacks of opportunity, as it may dash instead of disengaging if it is in melee.
Also, while wisdom is common among player characters and charisma uncommon, it is not always that clear with enemies. Devils for example often have pretty high charisma. Hypnotic Pattern hits in an AoE, meaning it is possible to hit entire groups of enemies. If you can hit enough enemies, the encounter is essentially over if your party can keep the remaining ones in check. The new banishment is just a flat out bad spell, not even as a 3rd level spell is it good. It is just a flat out bad spell.
They definitely are managing right now. The DMs for the groups I've seen didn't have to do any extra work. They are able to use existing resources to provide the counter play. The players in these groups didn't rein things in either, they well all out.
Hold Monster's Paralyze condition is incredibly powerful. The moment something is paralyzed, even if for one round, it is likely as good as dead. In most games I've seen, the moment a monster is paralyzed, it is probably going to take 100+ damage before it gets another save.
It isn't bad for the game if you don't have splat books power creep to begin with. Ideally splat books should be offering options that are equal in power to existing options, not stronger options. The issue you have is with power creep and if we keep power creep in check, then buffing options to provide more options would definitely work. Also, I have seen DM's not need to homebrew enemies and yet are still able to handle min/maxed caster characters, and none of them had to cheat the dice or anything like that.
Those combos are what were letting martials keep up with casters to begin with and honestly, I disagree with the idea that they were a mistake. Players should be comboing different things together to begin with. Also, bless was good even without SS/GWM; it is just straight up good in general. We should have kept the +10/-5 and simply added more comparable options so that they weren't the only option.
Yeah, that's what I meant by DMs need better advice and tools.
Pathfinder isn't for me, for a lot of reasons that aren't important to this discussion. But a major reason is that I think it has too many rules, tables, and calculations that don't really add anything to the game or change the outcome of an encounter enough to be worth it. I've played many games like it and I just personally prefer stripping away all of the mechanical mess possible if the same outcome can be achieved more elegantly.
But yes, the important thing is that DMs need the tools to understand and run the game well.
I still don't understand why increasing the power of everything else is a better answer than just fixing a few broken abilities. And just for clarity, when I say broken I don't mean just 'OP.' I mean broken in the sense that they constantly skew gameplay in one direction, or cause some spells or feats to be used all the time, or make encounter balance more difficult, or trip up new players and DMs. Dnd 5e is a really good system. You can count the broken parts on a few hands. It's so much better to just fix those parts.
We're probably just going to disagree on this, and that's fine. This is totally just my personal option obviously.
But if WotC decides to fix every problem by just power creeping every spell, feat, and class to meet the worst offenders, then it would be a massive turn off for me. That would probably make me check out. Fortunately they don't seem to have that in mind. They appear to see many of the real problems and are focusing on addressing them individually. The question is whether we, in the surveys, will let them do it. Or will enough people hate anything they see as a 'nerf' that nothing gets fixed? We'll probably know when the results of the Experts package come back. Worst case scenario, those handful of broken spells, feats, etc just stay broken. I can house rule fixes myself. It would be a big missed opportunity, but there's nothing I can do except voice my opinions too.
Even if that is the case was banishment broken? In optimizer circles its not considered a good spell as single target save or suck spells far too often end up being a totally wasted action. While spiritual weapon probably is now more in line with other similar spells was it really broken before?
I'm trying to avoid super long quotes (they are awful to view on my phone), so this reply is to MyDudeicus.
I don't know how broken Banishment and Spiritual Weapon are currently. But WotC seems to think so. So they are attempting to fix them. And again, when I say 'broken' I don't just mean too strong.
Optimizers pick things that are strong. But abilities can be broken for other reasons like I listed. Optimizers don't pick Banishment because it doesn't fit their math. That's a whole different rabbit hole to go down opinions on optimizer methods.... They do pick Spiritual Weapon because it's powerful.
If I had to guess why they feel Banishment is broken, it's because it is relatively easy to just end an encounter immediately. Encounters that, if they involve extra-planer creatures, were probably meant to be tough. It's disappointing and anticlimactic a lot of times. And the only solution requires DMs to change their encounters to try to negate the spell. That's rough for new DMs to understand, hard to account for in any CR encounter builder, and isn't really fun for anyone anyway.
If I had to guess why Spiritual Weapon is broken, it's because it's so good it's always used, and might interact weird with future plans they have for the action economy.
I'm not saying that I personally find these spells to be horribly broken, though I do agree they need some work. And I'm not saying that their fixes in this UA are the right ones. I have opinions on better fixes myself.
All I'm trying to say is that I think we have to be open to changes. Otherwise we might as well just keep playing 5e. And if everyone's reactions to any change that feels like a 'nerf' is to downvote it away, we'll never get to see what an improvement might look like. We'll never get a chance to see what a world without Spiritual Weapons flying around all the time could be. How many other cool options a Cleric might have for different playstyles. Or how an actually functional CR system might look.
First, these nerfs just makes these spells feel bad to use. Banishment is just straight up not worth using and Spiritual Weapon will probably not be looked at once Spirit Guardians is available.
Also, it is a lot more than a few "offenders." Feats like GWM, SS, PAM, etc. were what were letting martials keep up to begin with. Without them, you are going to have to hit so many more spells, essentially nerfing magic to the ground completely.
Casters are strong because of their versatility. Martials were keeping up because things like GWM and SS let them keep up DPS wise while casters handled crowd control. Casters have a huge amount of options even after losing spells like Banishment and Spiritual Weapons; nothing is being solved at the moment, just options being taken away.
Like I said, these fixes for Banishment and Spiritual Weapon might not be the right choices. I don't even think they are the best fixes. But I do want to be open to fixes in general.
Martials might currently be using GWM and Sharpshooter to keep up with casters, but it's at the expense of actually using any other options. And we have no idea what the new Martial abilities are going to be. They might get all kinds of cool new abilities and weapon options. Something like GWM might even be built into the Heavy weapon property. They might not need these old feats at all going forward. Which would be a great thing to give those characters more freedom of builds.
That is one of the problems with the way they are rolling out the UAs, which I've also said before. We only have part of the picture. They're showing us a change and asking what we think, but we don't know how to answer. So people get all worried that they won't get to do big damage anymore because we won't get the Warriors UA for months, and they react to that alone. Everything that feels like a nerf gets canned.
But if they're going to fix the perceived martial/caster problem, and make a better game for new players and DMs, and build a CR system that works, they have to change things. And part of that change will mean scaling damage better, or changing spells, etc. They just need to be better at presenting it in a way that tells us where it's all headed.
I think the change to Spiritual Weapon follows the thread where they talk about choosing between being a melee OR a spell cleric. It seems like they are envisioning one path where your damage is coming from your weapon and a second path where your damage is coming from your spells.
They should just take the hit penalty = damage bonus part of GWM and SS and roll them into the basic rules as a “called shot” with an Attack penalty = PB, and a damage bonus = 2×PB. That way one wouldn’t need a feat for that and it would open things up for more interesting builds.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They always did. That’s why some domains grant Potent Spellcasting at 8h level, and others grant Divine Strike.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting