Well since the wording is what informs you what the rule does it is kind of important to get hung up on it so we make sure its clear. And I'll just disagree on your non crit opinions, crits should be dope, let them be dope. A rogue sneaking for 1d8+5d6 getting a crit where now its 2d8+5d6 is not dope, its boring. The crit was borderline meaningless for them since most their damage came from the 5d6.
I definitely agree on Rogues, as being able to get those crucial critical hits with Sneak Attack is a crucial part of them for me, especially with the Assassin (though that has other mechanical issues), or with combos setup with hold person or similar. The Rogue should be the class for exploiting criticals.
But for the Paladin nova strikes have arguably overshadowed all the other cool stuff they already do extremely well; big criticals are less important for them because if they burn resources they can do a lot of damage continuously throughout a fight, and that's on top of free healing, aura effects and channel divinity, so the critical hits doubling everything is a lot less important for them IMO as Paladins in 5e are arguably one of the strongest classes, and even with some nerfs are still extremely self-sufficient. The question is if they've gone a bit too far.
Personally I'd be fine with them losing smite criticals, but they should maybe move Divine Smite to a reaction, and allow spells on the same turn (or at least smite spells). This means that while clerics can also use smite spells, the Paladin will be the only class that can double smite (Divine Smite plus a smite spell), and from 5th-level they'll have twice as many chances to trigger a double smite compared to the cleric (who only gets one as standard unless they sacrifice a shield to dual wield). While in theory the cleric could smite for a bit longer (though not actually that much longer, due to the way spell slots scale) the paladin can still sacrifice resources to smite harder/faster when it matters.
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.
Well since the wording is what informs you what the rule does it is kind of important to get hung up on it so we make sure its clear. And I'll just disagree on your non crit opinions, crits should be dope, let them be dope. A rogue sneaking for 1d8+5d6 getting a crit where now its 2d8+5d6 is not dope, its boring. The crit was borderline meaningless for them since most their damage came from the 5d6.
I definitely agree on Rogues, as being able to get those crucial critical hits with Sneak Attack is a crucial part of them for me, especially with the Assassin (though that has other mechanical issues), or with combos setup with hold person or similar. The Rogue should be the class for exploiting criticals.
But for the Paladin nova strikes have arguably overshadowed all the other cool stuff they already do extremely well; big criticals are less important for them because if they burn resources they can do a lot of damage continuously throughout a fight, and that's on top of free healing, aura effects and channel divinity, so the critical hits doubling everything is a lot less important for them IMO as Paladins in 5e are arguably one of the strongest classes, and even with some nerfs are still extremely self-sufficient. The question is if they've gone a bit too far.
Personally I'd be fine with them losing smite criticals, but they should maybe move Divine Smite to a reaction, and allow spells on the same turn (or at least smite spells). This means that while clerics can also use smite spells, the Paladin will be the only class that can double smite (Divine Smite plus a smite spell), and from 5th-level they'll have twice as many chances to trigger a double smite compared to the cleric (who only gets one as standard unless they sacrifice a shield to dual wield). While in theory the cleric could smite for a bit longer (though not actually that much longer, due to the way spell slots scale) the paladin can still sacrifice resources to smite harder/faster when it matters.
I agree. Though I don't know if Divine Smite needs to be moved to a reaction, but it might be a good trade-off. I'm fine with Divine Smite not being able to crit, but I am also fine with them being able to cast a spell on the same turn. If a Paladin wants to use a spell slot to smite, and a bonus action and another spell slot to cast a smite spell, then let them. It's costing resources to use, so let them use their resources. Maybe smites as a reaction would be a better balancing mechanic. So they use their action to attack, reaction to smite using a spell slot, BA to cast a smite spell, using another spell slot. Then they are done. Pretty much nothing else they can do until their next turn except move. But maybe that is too much. Using DS as a reaction takes away any other use of their reactions until their next turn, whether they use a spell or not.
I would have to try it out to see if that is too much or not.
Spells are spells and I don’t think every class needs a unique spell list. Every class needs a unique feel. Normally that is handled in class features. A Druid is never going to have more use of hunter’s mark than a Ranger. In 5e there is no cleric who could use a smite spell more effectively than a Paladin. This isn’t a spell list problem it’s a class design problem. Making the class feature divine smite essentially a spell itself ruins the Paladin’s ability to use smite spells more effectively than others. That’s the problem. I don’t care if others can cast smite spells, the Paladin should be able to do it the best. Honestly just making Divine smite not stop you from casting spells is a huge fix.
See the problem there is that now many classes are just getting spells as class features which takes away all their uniqueness. Giving Paladin the Find Steed spell as a class feature but leaving Find Steed as a spell means that their class feature is no longer unique. Since Find Steed scales with spell slot as well, Bards, Clerics (and probably druids since druid-cleric is a great multiclass) will have a better steed than the paladin, despite find steed being a class feature of paladin.
Find steed is ribbon feature on 1dnd Paladin at best. It doesn’t even have its own level and comes online at the same time as extra attack. It is a good ribbon allowing them to summon the steed in one action without a spell slot.
Spells are spells and I don’t think every class needs a unique spell list. Every class needs a unique feel. Normally that is handled in class features. A Druid is never going to have more use of hunter’s mark than a Ranger. In 5e there is no cleric who could use a smite spell more effectively than a Paladin. This isn’t a spell list problem it’s a class design problem. Making the class feature divine smite essentially a spell itself ruins the Paladin’s ability to use smite spells more effectively than others. That’s the problem. I don’t care if others can cast smite spells, the Paladin should be able to do it the best. Honestly just making Divine smite not stop you from casting spells is a huge fix.
See the problem there is that now many classes are just getting spells as class features which takes away all their uniqueness. Giving Paladin the Find Steed spell as a class feature but leaving Find Steed as a spell means that their class feature is no longer unique. Since Find Steed scales with spell slot as well, Bards, Clerics (and probably druids since druid-cleric is a great multiclass) will have a better steed than the paladin, despite find steed being a class feature of paladin.
Find steed is ribbon feature on 1dnd Paladin at best. It doesn’t even have its own level and comes online at the same time as extra attack. It is a good ribbon allowing them to summon the steed in one action without a spell slot.
yes, but it ignores the fundamental issue that Clerics and Bards will simply have better steeds, as steeds last indefinitely, this feature isn't really meaningful, most people are going to cast the spell at end of day, if they need too at all, with a spare spell slot they never used, more so during downtime periods. Cleric and Bard can cast at their highest spell slot and basically lose nothing for it. When faithful steed comes online, the comparison between a cleric's and paladin's steed is quiet noticeable.
Faithful Steed: AC 12, 25HP, Maul: spell attack, 1d8+2 damage
By the time Paladin eventually gets a 4th level slot
Faithful Steed: AC 12, 25HP, Maul: spell attack, 1d8+2 damage
Paladin 4th level slot: AC 14, 45HP, Maul, spell attack, 1d8+4, has flight
Cleric 7th level slot: AC 17, 75HP, Maul, Spell Attack, 1d8+7, has flight
If the free cast, cast find steed at a level equal to half of your character level to a maximum of 9th level, this feature would at least be comparable, as is, it's a waste since steeds don't even die that often to begin with. Unless you're using your steed to trigger all traps in a dungeon, that just ain't gunna happen.
Obviously Bards need to use magical secrets to get access to the spell, so it at least comes online later for them, but when it does, instant pegasus, griffon or hippogriff.
the fundamental issue that Clerics and Bards will simply have better steeds, as steeds last indefinitely, this feature isn't really meaningful, most people are going to cast the spell at end of day, if they need too at all, with a spare spell slot they never used, more so during downtime periods. Cleric and Bard can cast at their highest spell slot and basically lose nothing for it. When faithful steed comes online, the comparison between a cleric's and paladin's steed is quiet noticeable.
I think there's definite value in having a free casting, as one of the biggest issues with find steed is that it can't always go where you can go, so even if you cast it in advance you may find yourself wanting to re-cast it to get it back, and that's if it doesn't get killed.
But yeah, the implementation for Paladin is weird; it should IMO be a Channel Divinity power and level based upon your level as a Paladin (not your half-caster slot levels) so it stays in line with other full casters that can take the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Spells are spells and I don’t think every class needs a unique spell list. Every class needs a unique feel. Normally that is handled in class features. A Druid is never going to have more use of hunter’s mark than a Ranger. In 5e there is no cleric who could use a smite spell more effectively than a Paladin. This isn’t a spell list problem it’s a class design problem. Making the class feature divine smite essentially a spell itself ruins the Paladin’s ability to use smite spells more effectively than others. That’s the problem. I don’t care if others can cast smite spells, the Paladin should be able to do it the best. Honestly just making Divine smite not stop you from casting spells is a huge fix.
See the problem there is that now many classes are just getting spells as class features which takes away all their uniqueness. Giving Paladin the Find Steed spell as a class feature but leaving Find Steed as a spell means that their class feature is no longer unique. Since Find Steed scales with spell slot as well, Bards, Clerics (and probably druids since druid-cleric is a great multiclass) will have a better steed than the paladin, despite find steed being a class feature of paladin.
Find steed is ribbon feature on 1dnd Paladin at best. It doesn’t even have its own level and comes online at the same time as extra attack. It is a good ribbon allowing them to summon the steed in one action without a spell slot.
yes, but it ignores the fundamental issue that Clerics and Bards will simply have better steeds, as steeds last indefinitely, this feature isn't really meaningful, most people are going to cast the spell at end of day, if they need too at all, with a spare spell slot they never used, more so during downtime periods. Cleric and Bard can cast at their highest spell slot and basically lose nothing for it. When faithful steed comes online, the comparison between a cleric's and paladin's steed is quiet noticeable.
Faithful Steed: AC 12, 25HP, Maul: spell attack, 1d8+2 damage
By the time Paladin eventually gets a 4th level slot
Faithful Steed: AC 12, 25HP, Maul: spell attack, 1d8+2 damage
Paladin 4th level slot: AC 14, 45HP, Maul, spell attack, 1d8+4, has flight
Cleric 7th level slot: AC 17, 75HP, Maul, Spell Attack, 1d8+7, has flight
If the free cast, cast find steed at a level equal to half of your character level to a maximum of 9th level, this feature would at least be comparable, as is, it's a waste since steeds don't even die that often to begin with. Unless you're using your steed to trigger all traps in a dungeon, that just ain't gunna happen.
Obviously Bards need to use magical secrets to get access to the spell, so it at least comes online later for them, but when it does, instant pegasus, griffon or hippogriff.
Unless you play a game with a lot of open land travel it’s not going to matter. Most Steeds can’t get in most buildings or traverse most dungeons. In most cases the Paladin will be the only who could summon a steed in a clutch situation. That’s more or less what this ribbon does. Also it’s not a waste since it’s a ribbon and Paladins didn’t give up anything to gain it. Bards could already get find greater steed before 5e Paladins. The real problem is with spell design rather than feature design. It’s the most powerful creature summon by far. It probably shouldn’t be a permanent creature.
Unless you play a game with a lot of open land travel it’s not going to matter. Most Steeds can’t get in most buildings or traverse most dungeons. In most cases the Paladin will be the only who could summon a steed in a clutch situation. That’s more or less what this ribbon does. Also it’s not a waste since it’s a ribbon and Paladins didn’t give up anything to gain it. Bards could already get find greater steed before 5e Paladins. The real problem is with spell design rather than feature design. It’s the most powerful creature summon by far. It probably shouldn’t be a permanent creature.
Yes, Bards could get it in 5E, however there was a specific cost to doing that, once you take the spell, that magical secret slot is taken permanently, under the UA bard, you can just switch it to another spell on the next long rest, magical secret slots were much more valuable in 5E than with UA Bard.
The cases where you would use the ability to summon a steed into an area where else wise a steed could not get into is even smaller than the cases where find steed is useful. During travel/expedition, Clerics will now be able to take off from the ground at level 7 via a steed, which will almost certainly be seen more often than Paladin using a steed in a dungeon using this ability.
If the creature had a duration of 24-hours but that faithful steed additionally removed that duration, that would also be a potential way to fix it, but not really, if you have a 6th level spell slot, is it a big issue at start of day to use a 4th level spell slot to resummon, you don't sacrifice your highest leveled slots, it'll be a bit weaker but still higher than what a Paladin can get. More so faithful steed has no mention of upcasting which means a Paladin is only summoning a 2nd level steed, which has about enough HP to be one-hit by a number of AoE spells, so unless you want to be risking going prone a lot, by later levels, it is definitely moving towards being pointless.
Unless you play a game with a lot of open land travel it’s not going to matter. Most Steeds can’t get in most buildings or traverse most dungeons. In most cases the Paladin will be the only who could summon a steed in a clutch situation. That’s more or less what this ribbon does. Also it’s not a waste since it’s a ribbon and Paladins didn’t give up anything to gain it. Bards could already get find greater steed before 5e Paladins. The real problem is with spell design rather than feature design. It’s the most powerful creature summon by far. It probably shouldn’t be a permanent creature.
Yes, Bards could get it in 5E, however there was a specific cost to doing that, once you take the spell, that magical secret slot is taken permanently, under the UA bard, you can just switch it to another spell on the next long rest, magical secret slots were much more valuable in 5E than with UA Bard.
The cases where you would use the ability to summon a steed into an area where else wise a steed could not get into is even smaller than the cases where find steed is useful. During travel/expedition, Clerics will now be able to take off from the ground at level 7 via a steed, which will almost certainly be seen more often than Paladin using a steed in a dungeon using this ability.
If the creature had a duration of 24-hours but that faithful steed additionally removed that duration, that would also be a potential way to fix it, but not really, if you have a 6th level spell slot, is it a big issue at start of day to use a 4th level spell slot to resummon, you don't sacrifice your highest leveled slots, it'll be a bit weaker but still higher than what a Paladin can get. More so faithful steed has no mention of upcasting which means a Paladin is only summoning a 2nd level steed, which has about enough HP to be one-hit by a number of AoE spells, so unless you want to be risking going prone a lot, by later levels, it is definitely moving towards being pointless.
Find familiar has a 10 gold cost of special materials that could run out while adventuring and a one hour cast time. I think find steed should have a 20 gold material cost and 1 hour cast time. Both things waved by Paladin feature even when they use a spell slot to cast. If we go the non permanent route I would say 8 hour duration, no gold cost, 1 hour cast and the Paladin feature doubles the duration and the cast time is one action. Maybe add a sentence like: When you cast this spell without using a spell slot the steed gains a number of temp hp equal to twice your Paladin level. That way the free casting isn’t obsolete, but still not as good as using a spell slot.
I would favor the Paladin getting class or subclass benefits for using Smite spells rather than getting an ability that replicates Smite. Other classes use benefits to spells already. A Life Cleric gets Disciple of Life, Blessed Healer, and Supreme Healing abilities that make them more effective using the same healing/cure spells many classes can access. An Eloquence Bard uses Silver Tongue to make their use of Charisma (Persuasion) or Charisma (Deception) checks more successful. A Paladin might be capable of using a general Smite spell with more flavor, such as deciding if the damage is radiant, fire, etc., or they might do more damage using the same spell (many mechanics), etc. I believe the general design principle of the class and subclass is to focus upon specific aspects of the game to become more effective, which rewards investing more levels into a class rather than multi-classing.
Perhaps applying the design principle to Find Steed would allow the Paladin to use the same spell but without material components, summon a higher-level steed, some subclass might be able to cast Find Steed at a lower level once a day, etc. - many ideas possible.
I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned on this thread, but it's clear to me that if the devs go with a so-called streamlined Druid for the sake of ease-of-access in one book/document, then they would almost certainly have to do the same to Artificers. There is no way they would possibly fit the Artificer crafting and magic-item customization into a one page document what with over a hundred extant magic items in D&D. This will inevitably kill what popularity that Artificers might have had in OneD&D. As such, forcing templates on Druid Wildshape, while more manageable than trying to do so for Artificer, will ultimately drive away many of the same types of creative players as those who would find a purely template-based Artificer distasteful.
I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned on this thread, but it's clear to me that if the devs go with a so-called streamlined Druid for the sake of ease-of-access in one book/document, then they would almost certainly have to do the same to Artificers. There is no way they would possibly fit the Artificer crafting and magic-item customization into a one page document what with over a hundred extant magic items in D&D. This will inevitably kill what popularity that Artificers might have had in OneD&D. As such, forcing templates on Druid Wildshape, while more manageable than trying to do so for Artificer, will ultimately drive away many of the same types of creative players as those who would find a purely template-based Artificer distasteful.
Since when do 5e Artificers get access to over a hundred infusions? I'd hardly call it "streamlining" if all they did was not add in over a hundred options that were never there in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
A quick look and I counted 49 items under the Replicate Magic Item infusion. Might be off by a few and I’m no expert on Artificers. I just don’t see them streamlining Artificers so much, but who knows. Maybe they will tag certain items with and Infusion or Artificer tag or make a group, like the spell groups, to encompass what an artificer can make.
Edit: Maybe why Artificers are not going to be part of the PHB (but probably more likely so they don't step on their own toes when putting out a 1D&D Eberron setting)
I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned on this thread, but it's clear to me that if the devs go with a so-called streamlined Druid for the sake of ease-of-access in one book/document, then they would almost certainly have to do the same to Artificers. There is no way they would possibly fit the Artificer crafting and magic-item customization into a one page document what with over a hundred extant magic items in D&D. This will inevitably kill what popularity that Artificers might have had in OneD&D. As such, forcing templates on Druid Wildshape, while more manageable than trying to do so for Artificer, will ultimately drive away many of the same types of creative players as those who would find a purely template-based Artificer distasteful.
Agreed, I expect they will just remove the "replicate magic item" option, since it steps on the toes of DMs (who are supposed to control what magic items the party has access to), it's also a headache for non-campaign style games - e.g. AL or Westmarches - where there is usually a specific system for tracking / using magic items. Plus it requires players to search through the DMG to choose what they want, plus lots of extra books for the common items (some of which aren't balanced all that well). Using the list of infusions and even constraining them to only be use-able by the Artificer themselves would greatly simply the class and help so much with balancing - and prevent Artificer characters constantly asking to craft or for special permission to infuse one of the other uncommon items that is much more powerful than the most bad items (I've played 2 artificers in the past and each only took the "replicate magic item" option once b/c the options are so lame) they have put on the infusion list.
I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned on this thread, but it's clear to me that if the devs go with a so-called streamlined Druid for the sake of ease-of-access in one book/document, then they would almost certainly have to do the same to Artificers. There is no way they would possibly fit the Artificer crafting and magic-item customization into a one page document what with over a hundred extant magic items in D&D. This will inevitably kill what popularity that Artificers might have had in OneD&D. As such, forcing templates on Druid Wildshape, while more manageable than trying to do so for Artificer, will ultimately drive away many of the same types of creative players as those who would find a purely template-based Artificer distasteful.
Agreed, I expect they will just remove the "replicate magic item" option, since it steps on the toes of DMs (who are supposed to control what magic items the party has access to), it's also a headache for non-campaign style games - e.g. AL or Westmarches - where there is usually a specific system for tracking / using magic items. Plus it requires players to search through the DMG to choose what they want, plus lots of extra books for the common items (some of which aren't balanced all that well). Using the list of infusions and even constraining them to only be use-able by the Artificer themselves would greatly simply the class and help so much with balancing - and prevent Artificer characters constantly asking to craft or for special permission to infuse one of the other uncommon items that is much more powerful than the most bad items (I've played 2 artificers in the past and each only took the "replicate magic item" option once b/c the options are so lame) they have put on the infusion list.
My read on this has been to say that the artificer should have to have seen one of these items to be able to replicate it much like the druid has to see the animal in question to be able to shape into it. It seems odd to have a person able to create a magic item they've never seen. Though perhaps that's the ability name 'replicate' just giving me a mislead.
With the changes to the smite spells does this make Paladins and clerics better Gish’s than any other character? Paladins were already decent Gishs already. But now it feels more like they are channeling their magic through their weapons with the smite spells better now that they are “on hit” casts.
Should more spells like this be introduced (not necessarily smite spells or divine spells) with the “on hit” casting mechanic that may give some extra damage but more importantly the secondary or rider effects?
Edit: should GFB and BB be changed to this mechanic if/when they are reintroduced to 1D&D?
Edit: should GFB and BB be changed to this mechanic if/when they are reintroduced to 1D&D?
That's an interesting question; they've already shown an intention to make some cantrips into reactions. I don't personally agree with that being done for guidance (it doesn't need to be made useful in combat, it's already an excellent cantrip out of combat), but that might make sense for blade ward or true strike to just become a reaction to take less damage, or add a bonus to a hit or whatever.
The tricky thing with booming blade and green-flame blade is that their current trade off (casting as an action for only a single attack) limits their potential abuse. If you could do it as a bonus action on top of multiple attacks then they'd become a no brainer on Eldritch Knights unless the effect was severely weakened, but if you weaken the effect it will make them a lot worse for the single attack characters they were kind of aimed at in the first place.
That said, those cantrips have always occupied a tricky space in terms of balance so it does seem likely they'll need to be redesigned to step on the toes of martial classes a bit less, not sure what the correct solution for that would be though.
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.
Edit: should GFB and BB be changed to this mechanic if/when they are reintroduced to 1D&D?
That's an interesting question; they've already shown an intention to make some cantrips into reactions. I don't personally agree with that being done for guidance (it doesn't need to be made useful in combat, it's already an excellent cantrip out of combat), but that might make sense for blade ward or true strike to just become a reaction to take less damage, or add a bonus to a hit or whatever.
The tricky thing with booming blade and green-flame blade is that their current trade off (casting as an action for only a single attack) limits their potential abuse. If you could do it as a bonus action on top of multiple attacks then they'd become a no brainer on Eldritch Knights unless the effect was severely weakened, but if you weaken the effect it will make them a lot worse for the single attack characters they were kind of aimed at in the first place.
That said, those cantrips have always occupied a tricky space in terms of balance so it does seem likely they'll need to be redesigned to step on the toes of martial classes a bit less, not sure what the correct solution for that would be though.
TBH those cantrips are broken, they are entirely designed to allow spellcasters to play as martials so it isn't possible for them to not step on the toes of martials - that is exactly what they are designed to do! - either we give up and have the game be dominated by casters & gishes or those cantrips need to be removed entirely.
Edit:@Haravikk: That is a good point. A simple dip or Magic Initiate feat would be a must have for martials with extra attack, if they did that to GFB/BB.
Edit: should GFB and BB be changed to this mechanic if/when they are reintroduced to 1D&D?
That's an interesting question; they've already shown an intention to make some cantrips into reactions. I don't personally agree with that being done for guidance (it doesn't need to be made useful in combat, it's already an excellent cantrip out of combat), but that might make sense for blade ward or true strike to just become a reaction to take less damage, or add a bonus to a hit or whatever.
The tricky thing with booming blade and green-flame blade is that their current trade off (casting as an action for only a single attack) limits their potential abuse. If you could do it as a bonus action on top of multiple attacks then they'd become a no brainer on Eldritch Knights unless the effect was severely weakened, but if you weaken the effect it will make them a lot worse for the single attack characters they were kind of aimed at in the first place.
That said, those cantrips have always occupied a tricky space in terms of balance so it does seem likely they'll need to be redesigned to step on the toes of martial classes a bit less, not sure what the correct solution for that would be though.
TBH those cantrips are broken, they are entirely designed to allow spellcasters to play as martials so it isn't possible for them to not step on the toes of martials - that is exactly what they are designed to do! - either we give up and have the game be dominated by casters & gishes or those cantrips need to be removed entirely.
I don’t quite agree. They are pretty good cantrips but I don’t think they are that broken. If a wizard wants to gish, fine. They need a way to get armor and still only d6 HD. So they are not replacing a fighter, paladin, or ranger on the front lines. Classes with extra attack typically don’t use these cantrips. It does work out good for rogues, especially Arcane Trickster.
Edit: And really, a wizard that wants to gish starts losing effectiveness as a wizard, even Bladesingers, if they start ignoring their higher tier spells.
I don’t quite agree. They are pretty good cantrips but I don’t think they are that broken. If a wizard wants to gish, fine. They need a way to get armor and still only d6 HD. So they are not replacing a fighter, paladin, or ranger on the front lines. Classes with extra attack typically don’t use these cantrips. It does work out good for rogues, especially Arcane Trickster.
Edit: And really, a wizard that wants to gish starts losing effectiveness as a wizard, even Bladesingers, if they start ignoring their higher tier spells.
It depends a bit on player level, but currently in One D&D it is already super easy for a wizard (or other arcane caster) to replace a fighter, paladin, or ranger on the front lines: 1st level feat - Lightly Armoured (was that the name?) : light, medium armour + shield = AC 14+2+2 = 18 (or only 2 below a plate + shield build), add in the Shield spell and you've got on demand AC 23 and access to Absorb Elements which makes up for 30% lower HP. However, it's important to note that with the changes to two-weapon fighting and feats, the sword + board archetype is really suboptimal and most frontliners are going to be two-weapon fighting, or PAMing, so our Wizard will have the same baseline AC as most frontliners.
Sure, the wizard-gish won't do as much damage with their weapon as the fighter, paladin, or ranger most of the time. But they will do much more than a similar character that has to rely on non-weapon cantrips for damage, and still have full spellcasting. Combine this with the fact that higher level spells are much more restricted due to the change in spell preparation, I expect the blade cantrips to be the default melee-cantrips that every caster uses when they don't have an appropriate higher level spell available.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I definitely agree on Rogues, as being able to get those crucial critical hits with Sneak Attack is a crucial part of them for me, especially with the Assassin (though that has other mechanical issues), or with combos setup with hold person or similar. The Rogue should be the class for exploiting criticals.
But for the Paladin nova strikes have arguably overshadowed all the other cool stuff they already do extremely well; big criticals are less important for them because if they burn resources they can do a lot of damage continuously throughout a fight, and that's on top of free healing, aura effects and channel divinity, so the critical hits doubling everything is a lot less important for them IMO as Paladins in 5e are arguably one of the strongest classes, and even with some nerfs are still extremely self-sufficient. The question is if they've gone a bit too far.
Personally I'd be fine with them losing smite criticals, but they should maybe move Divine Smite to a reaction, and allow spells on the same turn (or at least smite spells). This means that while clerics can also use smite spells, the Paladin will be the only class that can double smite (Divine Smite plus a smite spell), and from 5th-level they'll have twice as many chances to trigger a double smite compared to the cleric (who only gets one as standard unless they sacrifice a shield to dual wield). While in theory the cleric could smite for a bit longer (though not actually that much longer, due to the way spell slots scale) the paladin can still sacrifice resources to smite harder/faster when it matters.
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 agree. Though I don't know if Divine Smite needs to be moved to a reaction, but it might be a good trade-off. I'm fine with Divine Smite not being able to crit, but I am also fine with them being able to cast a spell on the same turn. If a Paladin wants to use a spell slot to smite, and a bonus action and another spell slot to cast a smite spell, then let them. It's costing resources to use, so let them use their resources. Maybe smites as a reaction would be a better balancing mechanic. So they use their action to attack, reaction to smite using a spell slot, BA to cast a smite spell, using another spell slot. Then they are done. Pretty much nothing else they can do until their next turn except move. But maybe that is too much. Using DS as a reaction takes away any other use of their reactions until their next turn, whether they use a spell or not.
I would have to try it out to see if that is too much or not.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Find steed is ribbon feature on 1dnd Paladin at best. It doesn’t even have its own level and comes online at the same time as extra attack. It is a good ribbon allowing them to summon the steed in one action without a spell slot.
yes, but it ignores the fundamental issue that Clerics and Bards will simply have better steeds, as steeds last indefinitely, this feature isn't really meaningful, most people are going to cast the spell at end of day, if they need too at all, with a spare spell slot they never used, more so during downtime periods. Cleric and Bard can cast at their highest spell slot and basically lose nothing for it. When faithful steed comes online, the comparison between a cleric's and paladin's steed is quiet noticeable.
Faithful Steed: AC 12, 25HP, Maul: spell attack, 1d8+2 damage
Cleric's 3rd level slot: AC 13, 35HP, Maul: spell attack, 1d8+3 damage
By the time Paladin eventually gets a 4th level slot
Faithful Steed: AC 12, 25HP, Maul: spell attack, 1d8+2 damage
Paladin 4th level slot: AC 14, 45HP, Maul, spell attack, 1d8+4, has flight
Cleric 7th level slot: AC 17, 75HP, Maul, Spell Attack, 1d8+7, has flight
If the free cast, cast find steed at a level equal to half of your character level to a maximum of 9th level, this feature would at least be comparable, as is, it's a waste since steeds don't even die that often to begin with. Unless you're using your steed to trigger all traps in a dungeon, that just ain't gunna happen.
Obviously Bards need to use magical secrets to get access to the spell, so it at least comes online later for them, but when it does, instant pegasus, griffon or hippogriff.
I think there's definite value in having a free casting, as one of the biggest issues with find steed is that it can't always go where you can go, so even if you cast it in advance you may find yourself wanting to re-cast it to get it back, and that's if it doesn't get killed.
But yeah, the implementation for Paladin is weird; it should IMO be a Channel Divinity power and level based upon your level as a Paladin (not your half-caster slot levels) so it stays in line with other full casters that can take the spell.
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.
Unless you play a game with a lot of open land travel it’s not going to matter. Most Steeds can’t get in most buildings or traverse most dungeons. In most cases the Paladin will be the only who could summon a steed in a clutch situation. That’s more or less what this ribbon does. Also it’s not a waste since it’s a ribbon and Paladins didn’t give up anything to gain it. Bards could already get find greater steed before 5e Paladins. The real problem is with spell design rather than feature design. It’s the most powerful creature summon by far. It probably shouldn’t be a permanent creature.
Yes, Bards could get it in 5E, however there was a specific cost to doing that, once you take the spell, that magical secret slot is taken permanently, under the UA bard, you can just switch it to another spell on the next long rest, magical secret slots were much more valuable in 5E than with UA Bard.
The cases where you would use the ability to summon a steed into an area where else wise a steed could not get into is even smaller than the cases where find steed is useful. During travel/expedition, Clerics will now be able to take off from the ground at level 7 via a steed, which will almost certainly be seen more often than Paladin using a steed in a dungeon using this ability.
If the creature had a duration of 24-hours but that faithful steed additionally removed that duration, that would also be a potential way to fix it, but not really, if you have a 6th level spell slot, is it a big issue at start of day to use a 4th level spell slot to resummon, you don't sacrifice your highest leveled slots, it'll be a bit weaker but still higher than what a Paladin can get. More so faithful steed has no mention of upcasting which means a Paladin is only summoning a 2nd level steed, which has about enough HP to be one-hit by a number of AoE spells, so unless you want to be risking going prone a lot, by later levels, it is definitely moving towards being pointless.
Find familiar has a 10 gold cost of special materials that could run out while adventuring and a one hour cast time. I think find steed should have a 20 gold material cost and 1 hour cast time. Both things waved by Paladin feature even when they use a spell slot to cast. If we go the non permanent route I would say 8 hour duration, no gold cost, 1 hour cast and the Paladin feature doubles the duration and the cast time is one action. Maybe add a sentence like: When you cast this spell without using a spell slot the steed gains a number of temp hp equal to twice your Paladin level. That way the free casting isn’t obsolete, but still not as good as using a spell slot.
I would favor the Paladin getting class or subclass benefits for using Smite spells rather than getting an ability that replicates Smite. Other classes use benefits to spells already. A Life Cleric gets Disciple of Life, Blessed Healer, and Supreme Healing abilities that make them more effective using the same healing/cure spells many classes can access. An Eloquence Bard uses Silver Tongue to make their use of Charisma (Persuasion) or Charisma (Deception) checks more successful. A Paladin might be capable of using a general Smite spell with more flavor, such as deciding if the damage is radiant, fire, etc., or they might do more damage using the same spell (many mechanics), etc. I believe the general design principle of the class and subclass is to focus upon specific aspects of the game to become more effective, which rewards investing more levels into a class rather than multi-classing.
Perhaps applying the design principle to Find Steed would allow the Paladin to use the same spell but without material components, summon a higher-level steed, some subclass might be able to cast Find Steed at a lower level once a day, etc. - many ideas possible.
I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned on this thread, but it's clear to me that if the devs go with a so-called streamlined Druid for the sake of ease-of-access in one book/document, then they would almost certainly have to do the same to Artificers. There is no way they would possibly fit the Artificer crafting and magic-item customization into a one page document what with over a hundred extant magic items in D&D. This will inevitably kill what popularity that Artificers might have had in OneD&D. As such, forcing templates on Druid Wildshape, while more manageable than trying to do so for Artificer, will ultimately drive away many of the same types of creative players as those who would find a purely template-based Artificer distasteful.
Since when do 5e Artificers get access to over a hundred infusions? I'd hardly call it "streamlining" if all they did was not add in over a hundred options that were never there in the first place.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
A quick look and I counted 49 items under the Replicate Magic Item infusion. Might be off by a few and I’m no expert on Artificers. I just don’t see them streamlining Artificers so much, but who knows. Maybe they will tag certain items with and Infusion or Artificer tag or make a group, like the spell groups, to encompass what an artificer can make.
Edit: Maybe why Artificers are not going to be part of the PHB (but probably more likely so they don't step on their own toes when putting out a 1D&D Eberron setting)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Agreed, I expect they will just remove the "replicate magic item" option, since it steps on the toes of DMs (who are supposed to control what magic items the party has access to), it's also a headache for non-campaign style games - e.g. AL or Westmarches - where there is usually a specific system for tracking / using magic items. Plus it requires players to search through the DMG to choose what they want, plus lots of extra books for the common items (some of which aren't balanced all that well). Using the list of infusions and even constraining them to only be use-able by the Artificer themselves would greatly simply the class and help so much with balancing - and prevent Artificer characters constantly asking to craft or for special permission to infuse one of the other uncommon items that is much more powerful than the most bad items (I've played 2 artificers in the past and each only took the "replicate magic item" option once b/c the options are so lame) they have put on the infusion list.
My read on this has been to say that the artificer should have to have seen one of these items to be able to replicate it much like the druid has to see the animal in question to be able to shape into it. It seems odd to have a person able to create a magic item they've never seen. Though perhaps that's the ability name 'replicate' just giving me a mislead.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
With the changes to the smite spells does this make Paladins and clerics better Gish’s than any other character? Paladins were already decent Gishs already. But now it feels more like they are channeling their magic through their weapons with the smite spells better now that they are “on hit” casts.
Should more spells like this be introduced (not necessarily smite spells or divine spells) with the “on hit” casting mechanic that may give some extra damage but more importantly the secondary or rider effects?
Edit: should GFB and BB be changed to this mechanic if/when they are reintroduced to 1D&D?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That's an interesting question; they've already shown an intention to make some cantrips into reactions. I don't personally agree with that being done for guidance (it doesn't need to be made useful in combat, it's already an excellent cantrip out of combat), but that might make sense for blade ward or true strike to just become a reaction to take less damage, or add a bonus to a hit or whatever.
The tricky thing with booming blade and green-flame blade is that their current trade off (casting as an action for only a single attack) limits their potential abuse. If you could do it as a bonus action on top of multiple attacks then they'd become a no brainer on Eldritch Knights unless the effect was severely weakened, but if you weaken the effect it will make them a lot worse for the single attack characters they were kind of aimed at in the first place.
That said, those cantrips have always occupied a tricky space in terms of balance so it does seem likely they'll need to be redesigned to step on the toes of martial classes a bit less, not sure what the correct solution for that would be though.
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.
TBH those cantrips are broken, they are entirely designed to allow spellcasters to play as martials so it isn't possible for them to not step on the toes of martials - that is exactly what they are designed to do! - either we give up and have the game be dominated by casters & gishes or those cantrips need to be removed entirely.
Edit:@Haravikk: That is a good point. A simple dip or Magic Initiate feat would be a must have for martials with extra attack, if they did that to GFB/BB.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I don’t quite agree. They are pretty good cantrips but I don’t think they are that broken. If a wizard wants to gish, fine. They need a way to get armor and still only d6 HD. So they are not replacing a fighter, paladin, or ranger on the front lines. Classes with extra attack typically don’t use these cantrips. It does work out good for rogues, especially Arcane Trickster.
Edit: And really, a wizard that wants to gish starts losing effectiveness as a wizard, even Bladesingers, if they start ignoring their higher tier spells.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It depends a bit on player level, but currently in One D&D it is already super easy for a wizard (or other arcane caster) to replace a fighter, paladin, or ranger on the front lines:
1st level feat - Lightly Armoured (was that the name?) : light, medium armour + shield = AC 14+2+2 = 18 (or only 2 below a plate + shield build), add in the Shield spell and you've got on demand AC 23 and access to Absorb Elements which makes up for 30% lower HP. However, it's important to note that with the changes to two-weapon fighting and feats, the sword + board archetype is really suboptimal and most frontliners are going to be two-weapon fighting, or PAMing, so our Wizard will have the same baseline AC as most frontliners.
Sure, the wizard-gish won't do as much damage with their weapon as the fighter, paladin, or ranger most of the time. But they will do much more than a similar character that has to rely on non-weapon cantrips for damage, and still have full spellcasting. Combine this with the fact that higher level spells are much more restricted due to the change in spell preparation, I expect the blade cantrips to be the default melee-cantrips that every caster uses when they don't have an appropriate higher level spell available.