True Strike in this UA on a bladesinger.. wow, that's insanely good now, assuming you have a good INT score an extra 1d6/2d6/3d6 damage from level 5/11/17, is quiet impressive. Eldritch Knight could probably make it work too at later levels. Sorcerer can also use it in some cases, quicken True Strike, then True Strike but this feels more an emergency option.
Blade Ward is now broken, not sure why they changed this, it's like shield but doesn't even cost a spell slot... Disadvantage, also it doesn't say when the effect ends, is it the end of the creatures' next turn or is it just against that 1 attack? Right now, it would even be interpreted to be forever... but the instantaneous duration makes me think it is only meant to be against 1 attack. I think this needs some rewording, at 1 attack, it might be okay as later on most creatures do multiple attacks but tier 1 it's extremely tanky and many tank builds might even think about speccing to get it in one way or another. Magic Initiate would mean this, a 1/LR cast of shield and 1 other cantrip... just saying.
Will read over Bastions later, but seems exciting.
EDIT: I'm forgetting, True Strike applies to all weapons, including longbow and crossbow... this makes it better than firebolt for damage! 1d6 shortbow+3 from level 1, assuming 2d6 shortbow +4 from level 5, 3d6 shortbow +5 from level 11 and 4d6 shortbow +5 from level 17. Not sure if they intended it too be that much better than firebolt, an Evocation Wizard's Potent Cantrip or similar features can also be applied to it, to up it's damage even more. Also as a Rogue, you can now go crazy, get Magic Initiate as your 1st level feat, get this cantrip and focus Intelligence, go Arcane Trickster, now a SAD arcane trickster.
Blade Ward works for one attack only, and you have to use it before the attack roll. Instantaneous duration and a singular form of the word "roll" are quite clear. You can try to tank with it. But you'd need to remove your shield first, because it has a somatic component, which means a free hand is required. You could make it work with War Caster feat, though.
Regarding True Strike, yes, it does give Arcane Trickster an option to go full Int. And sacrifice AC, initiative, Dex saving throws, and higher stealth, sleight of hand, and acrobatics skills in favor of Int skills and higher spell save DC. It's not busted, I think it's a fair trade. Also, 4d6+5 gives an average of 19. 4d10 fire bolt gives an average of 22. And it sets things on fire. And doesn't run out of arrows. And the range is longer.
True Strike in this UA on a bladesinger.. wow, that's insanely good now, assuming you have a good INT score an extra 1d6/2d6/3d6 damage from level 5/11/17, is quiet impressive. Eldritch Knight could probably make it work too at later levels. Sorcerer can also use it in some cases, quicken True Strike, then True Strike but this feels more an emergency option.
Blade Ward is now broken, not sure why they changed this, it's like shield but doesn't even cost a spell slot... Disadvantage, also it doesn't say when the effect ends, is it the end of the creatures' next turn or is it just against that 1 attack? Right now, it would even be interpreted to be forever... but the instantaneous duration makes me think it is only meant to be against 1 attack. I think this needs some rewording, at 1 attack, it might be okay as later on most creatures do multiple attacks but tier 1 it's extremely tanky and many tank builds might even think about speccing to get it in one way or another. Magic Initiate would mean this, a 1/LR cast of shield and 1 other cantrip... just saying.
Will read over Bastions later, but seems exciting.
EDIT: I'm forgetting, True Strike applies to all weapons, including longbow and crossbow... this makes it better than firebolt for damage! 1d6 shortbow+3 from level 1, assuming 2d6 shortbow +4 from level 5, 3d6 shortbow +5 from level 11 and 4d6 shortbow +5 from level 17. Not sure if they intended it too be that much better than firebolt, an Evocation Wizard's Potent Cantrip or similar features can also be applied to it, to up it's damage even more. Also as a Rogue, you can now go crazy, get Magic Initiate as your 1st level feat, get this cantrip and focus Intelligence, go Arcane Trickster, now a SAD arcane trickster.
Blade Ward works for one attack only, and you have to use it before the attack roll. Instantaneous duration and a singular form of the word "roll" are quite clear. You can try to tank with it. But you'd need to remove your shield first, because it has a somatic component, which means a free hand is required. You could make it work with War Caster feat, though.
Regarding True Strike, yes, it does give Arcane Trickster an option to go full Int. And sacrifice AC, initiative, Dex saving throws, and higher stealth, sleight of hand, and acrobatics skills in favor of Int skills and higher spell save DC. It's not busted, I think it's a fair trade. Also, 4d6+5 gives an average of 19. 4d10 fire bolt gives an average of 22. And it sets things on fire. And doesn't run out of arrows. And the range is longer.
I think you missed further in the conversation, True Strike uses your weapon, so the moment you get a +1, True Strike is winning basically always and with a Bastion you can ensure you get that +1. Not so much gone into, there are other things that can apply, like fighting styles and a multitude of other feats. Firebolt is longer than a shortbow, at least without disadvantage, the times you get fights like that and that they do not go past firebolts range... it's only the 85-120 foot range this matters, over 120 foot, you can still attack with a shortbow, albeit with disadvantage.
You lose a few skill checks for Dex, sure. Stealth, not so much, since Arcane Trickster can get invisibility, minor illusion and a few other helpful spells for stealth. Slight of Hand is the only real hit here and AC can be replaced with the shield spell, which adds far more AC than that lost, admittedly it is a limited resource.
Good point about the wording of Empowered Evocation and spells that make multiple attacks. However, neither the Rogue’s Sneak Attack nor the Barbarian’s Rage refer to the damage roll (or rolls), so we can’t extrapolate from those to Agonising Blast.
While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
emphasis mine.
Is that copied from the current PHB? The wording in UA7 is different and no longer refers to the damage roll (only a bonus to the damage).
I am so glad to hear Druid is getting another pass. Moon Druid really needs a little more love to bring it up to par with the other subclasses.
Though how do they figure Bard is done? The last version of Bard we saw was dependent on the generic spell lists. Those are gone, so... What is Bard even like now?
Good point about the wording of Empowered Evocation and spells that make multiple attacks. However, neither the Rogue’s Sneak Attack nor the Barbarian’s Rage refer to the damage roll (or rolls), so we can’t extrapolate from those to Agonising Blast.
While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
emphasis mine.
Is that copied from the current PHB? The wording in UA7 is different and no longer refers to the damage roll (only a bonus to the damage).
Blade Ward is now broken, not sure why they changed this, it's like shield but doesn't even cost a spell slot... Disadvantage, also it doesn't say when the effect ends, is it the end of the creatures' next turn or is it just against that 1 attack? Right now, it would even be interpreted to be forever... but the instantaneous duration makes me think it is only meant to be against 1 attack. I think this needs some rewording, at 1 attack, it might be okay as later on most creatures do multiple attacks but tier 1 it's extremely tanky and many tank builds might even think about speccing to get it in one way or another. Magic Initiate would mean this, a 1/LR cast of shield and 1 other cantrip... just saying.
The duration is instantaneous, so it ends as soon as it is triggered. What I don't like about it is the wording of the trigger. "A creature you can see" is a phrase used throughout the rules. We all know what that means. Instead, the designers decided to use the phrase "a visible creature." So either 1) the designers used a different wording because it's not meant to be the same thing or 2) it's meant to mean the same thing and the designers should have stuck with the standard wording used throughout the rules.
But we do seem to be in agreement that the wording could use another pass.
Good point about the wording of Empowered Evocation and spells that make multiple attacks. However, neither the Rogue’s Sneak Attack nor the Barbarian’s Rage refer to the damage roll (or rolls), so we can’t extrapolate from those to Agonising Blast.
While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
emphasis mine.
Is that copied from the current PHB? The wording in UA7 is different and no longer refers to the damage roll (only a bonus to the damage).
It's from dndbeyond. So the current version.
Looks like they’ve changed the wording in the latest UA version of the Barbarian, which suggests that they’re trying to remove potential ambiguities like this. Hence, I think damage roll is now intended to mean each damage dice, rather than the total damage of the attack. So, Rage works as before while Agonising Blast adds to each damage dice (as I believe it currently does with EB). I accept I might be wrong but this is the reading that best seems to fit.
Good point about the wording of Empowered Evocation and spells that make multiple attacks. However, neither the Rogue’s Sneak Attack nor the Barbarian’s Rage refer to the damage roll (or rolls), so we can’t extrapolate from those to Agonising Blast.
While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
emphasis mine.
Is that copied from the current PHB? The wording in UA7 is different and no longer refers to the damage roll (only a bonus to the damage).
It's from dndbeyond. So the current version.
Looks like they’ve changed the wording in the latest UA version of the Barbarian, which suggests that they’re trying to remove potential ambiguities like this. Hence, I think damage roll is now intended to mean each damage dice, rather than the total damage of the attack. So, Rage works as before while Agonising Blast adds to each damage dice (as I believe it currently does with EB). I accept I might be wrong but this is the reading that best seems to fit.
Do you actually have any reason to believe that? I think it's generally accepted that 2d4 is a roll.
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)
I think you missed further in the conversation, True Strike uses your weapon, so the moment you get a +1, True Strike is winning basically always and with a Bastion you can ensure you get that +1. Not so much gone into, there are other things that can apply, like fighting styles and a multitude of other feats. Firebolt is longer than a shortbow, at least without disadvantage, the times you get fights like that and that they do not go past firebolts range... it's only the 85-120 foot range this matters, over 120 foot, you can still attack with a shortbow, albeit with disadvantage.
You lose a few skill checks for Dex, sure. Stealth, not so much, since Arcane Trickster can get invisibility, minor illusion and a few other helpful spells for stealth. Slight of Hand is the only real hit here and AC can be replaced with the shield spell, which adds far more AC than that lost, admittedly it is a limited resource.
With an average damage of 19, you need a +3 weapon to get to fire bolt numbers. Then there's new Poison Spray with 26 average damage at level 17. Sure, you'll have a higher chance to hit on the condition that you find a magic ranged weapon that you are proficient with. But then again, you could also find a wand with a +3 bonus to spell attack rolls. Or have it crafted in a bastion.
My point is that True Strike isn't a big deal. It kind of feels like people are trying to find cheese where there's none, forgetting about costs and alternatives. Understandable, given WotC's track record of not seeing the obvious exploits like hexadin.
Good point about the wording of Empowered Evocation and spells that make multiple attacks. However, neither the Rogue’s Sneak Attack nor the Barbarian’s Rage refer to the damage roll (or rolls), so we can’t extrapolate from those to Agonising Blast.
While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
emphasis mine.
Is that copied from the current PHB? The wording in UA7 is different and no longer refers to the damage roll (only a bonus to the damage).
It's from dndbeyond. So the current version.
Looks like they’ve changed the wording in the latest UA version of the Barbarian, which suggests that they’re trying to remove potential ambiguities like this. Hence, I think damage roll is now intended to mean each damage dice, rather than the total damage of the attack. So, Rage works as before while Agonising Blast adds to each damage dice (as I believe it currently does with EB). I accept I might be wrong but this is the reading that best seems to fit.
Do you actually have any reason to believe that? I think it's generally accepted that 2d4 is a roll.
Am I correct that the current Agonising Blast adds your CHA to each hit? The new version adds it to the damage rolls of your chosen cantrip. For EB, that’s a change of wording but the effect seems to be the same: each hit does 1d10+CHA. If we take another cantrip which makes only a single attack, then either, depending on how we interpret the wording, we add your CHA to the group total roll or to each of the rolls. So, at level 17+ Firebolt with AB will either inflict 4d10+CHA or 4*(1d10+CHA). Now, either might be correct, but I would wonder why WotC would go to the effort of adding an option that seems to be so inferior to the existing option (probably 15 fewer damage per round at that level).
Am I correct that the current Agonising Blast adds your CHA to each hit? The new version adds it to the damage rolls of your chosen cantrip. For EB, that’s a change of wording but the effect seems to be the same: each hit does 1d10+CHA. If we take another cantrip which makes only a single attack, then either, depending on how we interpret the wording, we add your CHA to the group total roll or to each of the rolls. So, at level 17+ Firebolt with AB will either inflict 4d10+CHA or 4*(1d10+CHA). Now, either might be correct, but I would wonder why WotC would go to the effort of adding an option that seems to be so inferior to the existing option (probably 15 fewer damage per round at that level).
I suppose it is for the same reason why making multiple attacks with Light main and off-hand weapons can do different damage than making fewer but heavier blows with a two-handed one? You spread your chance to hit out over multiple attacks. And if you have damage bonuses to individual attacks, like say Spirit Shroud you enjoy a greater benefit from making extra attacks, than when you are gaining a once-per-round damage bonus like Sneak Attack.
Agonising Blast and Eldritch Blast has the -potential- to deal higher damage, but you take the chance with each attack. On average, you're likely better off with this gamble. But sometimes the dice hates you, and you miss several blasts. With a single attack you're all-or-nothing. This is basically a scaled-up version of "Is 3d4 better than 1d12?"
So, each attack roll comes with its own damage roll, made up from all the dice added to the pool. Many attacks, many damage rolls. One attack? One damage roll, no matter how many dice. Just like many other people have said throughout this thread.
Now, I can't quote a specific rule on this - either from 2014 or UA - but I imagine that if the entire community has misinterpreted what constitutes a damage roll someone with a WotC hat would've spoken up about it by now, right?
Am I correct that the current Agonising Blast adds your CHA to each hit? The new version adds it to the damage rolls of your chosen cantrip. For EB, that’s a change of wording but the effect seems to be the same: each hit does 1d10+CHA. If we take another cantrip which makes only a single attack, then either, depending on how we interpret the wording, we add your CHA to the group total roll or to each of the rolls. So, at level 17+ Firebolt with AB will either inflict 4d10+CHA or 4*(1d10+CHA). Now, either might be correct, but I would wonder why WotC would go to the effort of adding an option that seems to be so inferior to the existing option (probably 15 fewer damage per round at that level).
I suppose it is for the same reason why making multiple attacks with Light main and off-hand weapons can do different damage than making fewer but heavier blows with a two-handed one? You spread your chance to hit out over multiple attacks. And if you have damage bonuses to individual attacks, like say Spirit Shroud you enjoy a greater benefit from making extra attacks, than when you are gaining a once-per-round damage bonus like Sneak Attack.
Agonising Blast and Eldritch Blast has the -potential- to deal higher damage, but you take the chance with each attack. On average, you're likely better off with this gamble. But sometimes the dice hates you, and you miss several blasts. With a single attack you're all-or-nothing. This is basically a scaled-up version of "Is 3d4 better than 1d12?"
So, each attack roll comes with its own damage roll, made up from all the dice added to the pool. Many attacks, many damage rolls. One attack? One damage roll, no matter how many dice. Just like many other people have said throughout this thread.
Now, I can't quote a specific rule on this - either from 2014 or UA - but I imagine that if the entire community has misinterpreted what constitutes a damage roll someone with a WotC hat would've spoken up about it by now, right?
At least, I choose to believe so :)
Thank you.
I think the precise meaning of “damage roll” hasn’t needed to be addressed before because it’s not made any difference. The new version of Agonising Blast does raise the question now of what precisely is meant and I find it interesting that some of the features, like Rage, have had changes of wording that remove references to “damage rolls”. Hopefully there will be further tweaks to the wording (or an explanation built into the new PHB) that makes the intent of Agonising Blast clear.
Now, mind you, this could be as innocent as word-count trim, using natural language, or any other explanation. In the latest UA where the Warlock was featured, for instance, there was no mention of the ability to retrain Invocations on level-up; a feature they have had since 2014 and up until UA5. And then with UA7? Language missing.
Are these small changes intentional? If so, I'd imagine they'd make a note of it in those grey boxes, just as they do with any other change made. Or maybe just them being sloppy. Take for instance in UA7 how the Warlock multiclass section still talks about alternate spellcasting attribues? It's not a perfect document :)
My guess, though? Maybe not read TOO much into UA specific verbiage and instead keep an open mind of the overall changes. Minutiae is likely subject to change, listed or otherwise.
Anyway, good on you for bringing up a potential interpretation hiccup! You just KNOW there'll be some table where someone points to this and invokes the dread conjuring of "But the book says I can!" :D
Blade Ward works for one attack only, and you have to use it before the attack roll. Instantaneous duration and a singular form of the word "roll" are quite clear. You can try to tank with it. But you'd need to remove your shield first, because it has a somatic component, which means a free hand is required. You could make it work with War Caster feat, though.
Regarding True Strike, yes, it does give Arcane Trickster an option to go full Int. And sacrifice AC, initiative, Dex saving throws, and higher stealth, sleight of hand, and acrobatics skills in favor of Int skills and higher spell save DC. It's not busted, I think it's a fair trade. Also, 4d6+5 gives an average of 19. 4d10 fire bolt gives an average of 22. And it sets things on fire. And doesn't run out of arrows. And the range is longer.
I think you missed further in the conversation, True Strike uses your weapon, so the moment you get a +1, True Strike is winning basically always and with a Bastion you can ensure you get that +1. Not so much gone into, there are other things that can apply, like fighting styles and a multitude of other feats. Firebolt is longer than a shortbow, at least without disadvantage, the times you get fights like that and that they do not go past firebolts range... it's only the 85-120 foot range this matters, over 120 foot, you can still attack with a shortbow, albeit with disadvantage.
You lose a few skill checks for Dex, sure. Stealth, not so much, since Arcane Trickster can get invisibility, minor illusion and a few other helpful spells for stealth. Slight of Hand is the only real hit here and AC can be replaced with the shield spell, which adds far more AC than that lost, admittedly it is a limited resource.
Is that copied from the current PHB? The wording in UA7 is different and no longer refers to the damage roll (only a bonus to the damage).
I am so glad to hear Druid is getting another pass. Moon Druid really needs a little more love to bring it up to par with the other subclasses.
Though how do they figure Bard is done? The last version of Bard we saw was dependent on the generic spell lists. Those are gone, so... What is Bard even like now?
It's from dndbeyond. So the current version.
The duration is instantaneous, so it ends as soon as it is triggered. What I don't like about it is the wording of the trigger. "A creature you can see" is a phrase used throughout the rules. We all know what that means. Instead, the designers decided to use the phrase "a visible creature." So either 1) the designers used a different wording because it's not meant to be the same thing or 2) it's meant to mean the same thing and the designers should have stuck with the standard wording used throughout the rules.
But we do seem to be in agreement that the wording could use another pass.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Looks like they’ve changed the wording in the latest UA version of the Barbarian, which suggests that they’re trying to remove potential ambiguities like this. Hence, I think damage roll is now intended to mean each damage dice, rather than the total damage of the attack. So, Rage works as before while Agonising Blast adds to each damage dice (as I believe it currently does with EB). I accept I might be wrong but this is the reading that best seems to fit.
Do you actually have any reason to believe that? I think it's generally accepted that 2d4 is a roll.
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)
With an average damage of 19, you need a +3 weapon to get to fire bolt numbers. Then there's new Poison Spray with 26 average damage at level 17. Sure, you'll have a higher chance to hit on the condition that you find a magic ranged weapon that you are proficient with. But then again, you could also find a wand with a +3 bonus to spell attack rolls. Or have it crafted in a bastion.
My point is that True Strike isn't a big deal. It kind of feels like people are trying to find cheese where there's none, forgetting about costs and alternatives. Understandable, given WotC's track record of not seeing the obvious exploits like hexadin.
Am I correct that the current Agonising Blast adds your CHA to each hit? The new version adds it to the damage rolls of your chosen cantrip. For EB, that’s a change of wording but the effect seems to be the same: each hit does 1d10+CHA. If we take another cantrip which makes only a single attack, then either, depending on how we interpret the wording, we add your CHA to the group total roll or to each of the rolls. So, at level 17+ Firebolt with AB will either inflict 4d10+CHA or 4*(1d10+CHA). Now, either might be correct, but I would wonder why WotC would go to the effort of adding an option that seems to be so inferior to the existing option (probably 15 fewer damage per round at that level).
I suppose it is for the same reason why making multiple attacks with Light main and off-hand weapons can do different damage than making fewer but heavier blows with a two-handed one? You spread your chance to hit out over multiple attacks. And if you have damage bonuses to individual attacks, like say Spirit Shroud you enjoy a greater benefit from making extra attacks, than when you are gaining a once-per-round damage bonus like Sneak Attack.
Agonising Blast and Eldritch Blast has the -potential- to deal higher damage, but you take the chance with each attack. On average, you're likely better off with this gamble. But sometimes the dice hates you, and you miss several blasts. With a single attack you're all-or-nothing. This is basically a scaled-up version of "Is 3d4 better than 1d12?"
So, each attack roll comes with its own damage roll, made up from all the dice added to the pool. Many attacks, many damage rolls. One attack? One damage roll, no matter how many dice. Just like many other people have said throughout this thread.
Now, I can't quote a specific rule on this - either from 2014 or UA - but I imagine that if the entire community has misinterpreted what constitutes a damage roll someone with a WotC hat would've spoken up about it by now, right?
At least, I choose to believe so :)
Thank you.
I think the precise meaning of “damage roll” hasn’t needed to be addressed before because it’s not made any difference. The new version of Agonising Blast does raise the question now of what precisely is meant and I find it interesting that some of the features, like Rage, have had changes of wording that remove references to “damage rolls”. Hopefully there will be further tweaks to the wording (or an explanation built into the new PHB) that makes the intent of Agonising Blast clear.
Now, mind you, this could be as innocent as word-count trim, using natural language, or any other explanation. In the latest UA where the Warlock was featured, for instance, there was no mention of the ability to retrain Invocations on level-up; a feature they have had since 2014 and up until UA5. And then with UA7? Language missing.
Are these small changes intentional? If so, I'd imagine they'd make a note of it in those grey boxes, just as they do with any other change made. Or maybe just them being sloppy. Take for instance in UA7 how the Warlock multiclass section still talks about alternate spellcasting attribues? It's not a perfect document :)
My guess, though? Maybe not read TOO much into UA specific verbiage and instead keep an open mind of the overall changes. Minutiae is likely subject to change, listed or otherwise.
Anyway, good on you for bringing up a potential interpretation hiccup! You just KNOW there'll be some table where someone points to this and invokes the dread conjuring of "But the book says I can!" :D
Nope :) 8 is here and monk is way more awesome! :) Yay!