I think we've done all the math that we can. The problem here is as follows: most people believe something to be an upgrade if it is better over the course of a campaign. Most people don't have an issue with 4d10 fire damage being worse than 3d10 fire damage when fighting an iron golem. Evidently, you're not most people.
The entire point of this thread is that the new scalling of shill isn't a step in the right direction and that's pretty much the case in anyway you look at it. -It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have acces to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat
-There are situations where after the upgrade you have less chance to kill the thing you are trying to kill regardless of what it actually is. This is a fact. not a single other cantrip scaling has this. Even in the hyperspecific single monster you brought up you didn't have less chance to kill
-And even if you ignore that and just use averages to not hurt your brain to much it's still a sudden drop from 1 avarage damage increase per upgrade to 0.5 avarage increase at the last one. It's a super small boost that get even smaller at the highest lvl
It just not a step in the right direction in any way you look at it. Something like you imbue club/staff with magic, once per turn you can use your spellcasting modifier for hit/damage and change the damage dice to 1/2/3/4d8 would be better scaling, work less well for multiattack classes then it does for the base druid and always be a strict upgrade.
But i guess if most people are fine with it having bad scaling, who am i to say otherwise? Never been much of a fan of druids anyway
Um, did you seriously just make an argument that Druids need to be able to keep up with martials when they are spell casters who at higher levels are among the group that most folks say are overpowered in relation to Casters? DO not compare Druid damage scaling to martials, please -- they are not martials, who have a very different basis.
By and large, the difference you are arguing over is one of philosophical approach: the development group (and the game as a whole) does not rely on curves. They rely strictly on averages. This holds for everything (even d100 tables) in the game as it is designed right now (with about a dozen total exceptions on the d100 tables). Simply put, they don't rely on distributive probability at all.
So you are arguing in opposition to the ethos of the game. Doable, no fault, but it is a fight you can't win and won't succeed in altering the end result (even if they walk back the change) because they aren't going to use the distributive probability as a reason for it.
As my prior statement acknowledged, there is a very peculiar shift there (though it is not uncommon in a real world basis that at the highest levels improvements come at a slower pace and a lower return on investment for anything), it does just really itch that they couldn't bounce to d14 because there is no such die. However, at the same time, how do you achieve that bump in game, without going over the 14 and still allowing for the 1? All your distributive arguments apply to any die combination, so you are saying the problem isn't solvable even if you do have a problem with it, but you aren't offering a solution, which is not constructive, and so not more than pissing in the wind.
The solution you do offer is outside the scope and ignores the obvious goals here -- you are essentially suggesting a new spell damage structure that is outside the ethos as well. Which is not a criticism of your suggestion in the sense of it beign a bad mechanic, merely that it is one that doesn't fit the circumstance or the apparent design goals. You went to a d8 basis to start, and ultimately you create a more powerful cantrip than they intended to create.
At most, your suggestion should provide for 14 points of damage. You went and aimed for 32 points, which is obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations, in the name of "better scaling"? That's ludicrous.
Now, bear in mind that part of the reason I cannot say much about it is that we unified all damage across all spells. all cantrips have a d6. All 1st level have a d8. All 2nd level have a d10. and so forth. Then for number of dice, again, across the board we went with 1 die per level of the spell caster. A simple, basic uniform spell damage (and healing) system that applies regardless.
And we did it because we got tired of this exact kind of argument, lol. They were clogging up our table and wrecking our playing time.
There were some unexpected side benefits, as well -- shield type spells now also roll dice, and that's the defensive power of the shield. Resistance in some cases works the same way.
But that is just as ludicrous a suggestion to make to the dev team as going to 1/2/3/4 d8 for Shillelagh. The idea isn't bad (no everyone would like it, no, but mechanically it is simpler), but it doesn't fit with the obvious goals of the spell.
It also means that at 1st level our Shillelagh only causes 1d6 damage. No matter how they rewrite the spell. But a 2nd level druid does 2d6. and so forth. With a 20th level Druid's Shillelagh doing 20d6 damage from a cantrip. So yeah, our system *really* doesn't work for the 5e ethos (even with me scaling it back some for the next campaign).
What the heck is with these forums and people trying to twist what people are trying to say.Where did i say that druids need to keep up with martials? What i said was that it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid. Am i really being that creptic with what i'm saying? English isn't my first language so if that's the case i apologize
Also you kinda lost me in the second part but you can't seriously be suggesting that a 17th lvl caster being able to do 4d8+5 damage in melee for both bonus and regular action on the first turn to be "obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations" Green flame blade exist and does weapon damage +3d8 with a added benefit of 3d8+mod against a nearby target at lvl 17 The change i suggested to shill is barely better then Primal Savagery at the cost of needing a bonus action and a action. How on earth is that overpowered?
First bolded: "-It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have access to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat"
Second bolded: In terms of what the designers were aiming for when they altered the spell, absolutely. They did not aim for the spell to be that powerful or to scale that high at higher levels. IF they had, they would have done that or something more similar. They did not. They scaled it for a single point improvement each stage (until the last, when it is only a half point). So the design goal was to scale it to 1 point for each increase, not increase the number of dice (in this case, 4.5 points per stage), so your suggestion is a multiplier of three greater (which is overpowered).
The issue isn't how good the spell is in comparison to others, the issue is how the changes to the spell affect the spell. IF you want to go for comparisons to other things, then the endless argument about damage is going to start up, and if you want to go there, well, then it would be just as reasonable for me to argue that all cantrips should be limited to 1d4. Which, for the record, is not reasonable, because we aren't talking about all the other spells, we are talking about this one and the specific changes made to it, within its own self. THe only comparison that makes sense to use is prior versions of shillelagh.
Unless we are doing a broad range of comparisons of different spells to each other. Which would make one question why they don't have all the spells doing the same damage, across the board, and would devolve to the end result position my group took.
For the first bolded what i meant was that it's weird for a druid only cantrip to be better for extra attackers which the druid doesn't have acces to then to the druid himself. I honestly don't see how you have read it as anything other then that.
and the second isn't the entire point of these UA that we can leave feedback on their design goal so they might potentially change it for the better?
The design goal of the first druid playtest was to use templates. Was everyone who was against that in the wrong then? It clearly was in the design goal that wild shape had less options to choose from to save time so was suggesting to go back to stat blocks overpowered then?
The design goal of 2014 true strike is to give advantage to an attack. Is the new one overpowered cause it changed that design goal?
If the design goal is this sacred thing we can't suggest changes to why have a playtest at all? design goals can be flawed and should be discussed. You can't say my suggestion to the spell is overpowered when you can compare about evenly with other simular spells who aren't concidered overpowered. I'm not going to say that my suggestion is perfect, it isn't.
But to completely dismiss it cause it doesn't line up with the suggested change is extremely narrow minded and completely goes against the purpose of playtesting at all
Also extreme disagreement it shouldn't be compared to other spells. Not doing so is exactly how you get outliners who over/underperform. Comparing the spells to eachother is how they knew these were the ones who needed changes in the first place
I mean no it's not a big problem. It's not going to make or break the 2024 handbook if they print it like this. But if we have the option to leave feedback and possibly change it for the better, why shouldn't i bring it up? Even if i'm completely wrong it's still better to hear out a bad idea and dismiss it then to potentially not hear a good idea cause people keep silent
That's totally fair.
As it stands, I like that it's a good cantrip for martials, and I bet that's part of why they made the changes they did. So I wouldn't want to see its "druidness" come at the expense of that. I could see the scaling being a tiny bit better to compete with Primal Savagery for druids, but... of course, you could just make it a D20 of damage at level 17, which is a big bump at a level where cantrips don't matter very much anyway.
I mean no it's not a big problem. It's not going to make or break the 2024 handbook if they print it like this. But if we have the option to leave feedback and possibly change it for the better, why shouldn't i bring it up? Even if i'm completely wrong it's still better to hear out a bad idea and dismiss it then to potentially not hear a good idea cause people keep silent
That's totally fair.
As it stands, I like that it's a good cantrip for martials, and I bet that's part of why they made the changes they did. So I wouldn't want to see its "druidness" come at the expense of that. I could see the scaling being a tiny bit better to compete with Primal Savagery for druids, but... of course, you could just make it a D20 of damage at level 17, which is a big bump at a level where cantrips don't matter very much anyway.
I don't think they will ever use a d20 for damage to prevent confusement. But it is true that it's not necessarily a bad thing that shill is the primary cantrip for druid/martial combinations. That does fill a nice niche where primal savagery already covers the mellee option for standerd druids You are right
...it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid.
(just using this particular quote because it's concise)
Is that a big problem? It's true of the current 5e version of the cantrip, and the new changes still make it better (than before) for both the Druid and the martial.
Yes, it's a problem. The point of the 2024 book is to fix problems, and this... doesn't fix a problem. It doesn't really make the problem worse, but it doesn't fix it.
...it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid.
Is that a big problem? It's true of the current 5e version of the cantrip, and the new changes still make it better (than before) for both the Druid and the martial.
Yes, it's a problem. The point of the 2024 book is to fix problems, and this... doesn't fix a problem. It doesn't really make the problem worse, but it doesn't fix it.
OK...what problem is it not fixing?
(Is this "just" another "rangers and paladins shouldn't be able to melee with their casting stat!" thing?)
I think we've done all the math that we can. The problem here is as follows: most people believe something to be an upgrade if it is better over the course of a campaign. Most people don't have an issue with 4d10 fire damage being worse than 3d10 fire damage when fighting an iron golem. Evidently, you're not most people.
I'm still having a hard time grasping how you think the iron golem is in any way a solid argument It's a single monster that in 95+% of campaigns is never going to be seen vs the situation where any monster has 10-12+damage bonus hp left. One is a lot more common then the other. That would be like me saying this poor country has food issues cause 20% of the children are starving and then you respond by saying it's not a problem cause in this rich country there also was a single child has starved. That's the kind of mental gymnastics you are making. We've done all the math we needed right from my first post. I made a statement that there are situations (which aren't uncommon) where the 2d6 is worse then the d12 and that is 100% a fact The entire point of this thread is that the new scalling of shill isn't a step in the right direction and that's pretty much the case in anyway you look at it. -It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have acces to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat
-There are situations where after the upgrade you have less chance to kill the thing you are trying to kill regardless of what it actually is. This is a fact. not a single other cantrip scaling has this. Even in the hyperspecific single monster you brought up you didn't have less chance to kill
-And even if you ignore that and just use averages to not hurt your brain to much it's still a sudden drop from 1 avarage damage increase per upgrade to 0.5 avarage increase at the last one. It's a super small boost that get even smaller at the highest lvl
It just not a step in the right direction in any way you look at it. Something like you imbue club/staff with magic, once per turn you can use your spellcasting modifier for hit/damage and change the damage dice to 1/2/3/4d8 would be better scaling, work less well for multiattack classes then it does for the base druid and always be a strict upgrade.
But i guess if most people are fine with it having bad scaling, who am i to say otherwise? Never been much of a fan of druids anyway
You misunderstand my point entirely. I'm not actually using the iron golem example that I gave earlier as an argument, I'm using your reaction to it. You said that you actually took issue with the fact that 17th level fire bolt is worse than 11th level fire bolt when fighting an iron golem. I think that the vast majority of people don't have that same issue, and furthermore that this disconnect extends to the new shillelagh.
The point that you missed is this: most people see something as an upgrade if it's better over the course of a campaign, whereas you only see something as an upgrade if it's better in every situation. Because of this fundamental disconnect, you're not going to convince anybody of the former idea that the latter is correct.
Can you respond to this point?
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)
...it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid.
Is that a big problem? It's true of the current 5e version of the cantrip, and the new changes still make it better (than before) for both the Druid and the martial.
Yes, it's a problem. The point of the 2024 book is to fix problems, and this... doesn't fix a problem. It doesn't really make the problem worse, but it doesn't fix it.
OK...what problem is it not fixing?
It's not fixing "druid cantrip is bad for druids".
...it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid.
Is that a big problem? It's true of the current 5e version of the cantrip, and the new changes still make it better (than before) for both the Druid and the martial.
Yes, it's a problem. The point of the 2024 book is to fix problems, and this... doesn't fix a problem. It doesn't really make the problem worse, but it doesn't fix it.
OK...what problem is it not fixing?
It's not fixing "druid cantrip is bad for druids".
I wouldn’t say it’s “bad” for druids, it’s just not particularly good for them either while simultaneously being better for other classes.
I think we've done all the math that we can. The problem here is as follows: most people believe something to be an upgrade if it is better over the course of a campaign. Most people don't have an issue with 4d10 fire damage being worse than 3d10 fire damage when fighting an iron golem. Evidently, you're not most people.
The entire point of this thread is that the new scalling of shill isn't a step in the right direction and that's pretty much the case in anyway you look at it. -It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have acces to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat
-There are situations where after the upgrade you have less chance to kill the thing you are trying to kill regardless of what it actually is. This is a fact. not a single other cantrip scaling has this. Even in the hyperspecific single monster you brought up you didn't have less chance to kill
-And even if you ignore that and just use averages to not hurt your brain to much it's still a sudden drop from 1 avarage damage increase per upgrade to 0.5 avarage increase at the last one. It's a super small boost that get even smaller at the highest lvl
It just not a step in the right direction in any way you look at it. Something like you imbue club/staff with magic, once per turn you can use your spellcasting modifier for hit/damage and change the damage dice to 1/2/3/4d8 would be better scaling, work less well for multiattack classes then it does for the base druid and always be a strict upgrade.
But i guess if most people are fine with it having bad scaling, who am i to say otherwise? Never been much of a fan of druids anyway
Um, did you seriously just make an argument that Druids need to be able to keep up with martials when they are spell casters who at higher levels are among the group that most folks say are overpowered in relation to Casters? DO not compare Druid damage scaling to martials, please -- they are not martials, who have a very different basis.
By and large, the difference you are arguing over is one of philosophical approach: the development group (and the game as a whole) does not rely on curves. They rely strictly on averages. This holds for everything (even d100 tables) in the game as it is designed right now (with about a dozen total exceptions on the d100 tables). Simply put, they don't rely on distributive probability at all.
So you are arguing in opposition to the ethos of the game. Doable, no fault, but it is a fight you can't win and won't succeed in altering the end result (even if they walk back the change) because they aren't going to use the distributive probability as a reason for it.
As my prior statement acknowledged, there is a very peculiar shift there (though it is not uncommon in a real world basis that at the highest levels improvements come at a slower pace and a lower return on investment for anything), it does just really itch that they couldn't bounce to d14 because there is no such die. However, at the same time, how do you achieve that bump in game, without going over the 14 and still allowing for the 1? All your distributive arguments apply to any die combination, so you are saying the problem isn't solvable even if you do have a problem with it, but you aren't offering a solution, which is not constructive, and so not more than pissing in the wind.
The solution you do offer is outside the scope and ignores the obvious goals here -- you are essentially suggesting a new spell damage structure that is outside the ethos as well. Which is not a criticism of your suggestion in the sense of it beign a bad mechanic, merely that it is one that doesn't fit the circumstance or the apparent design goals. You went to a d8 basis to start, and ultimately you create a more powerful cantrip than they intended to create.
At most, your suggestion should provide for 14 points of damage. You went and aimed for 32 points, which is obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations, in the name of "better scaling"? That's ludicrous.
Now, bear in mind that part of the reason I cannot say much about it is that we unified all damage across all spells. all cantrips have a d6. All 1st level have a d8. All 2nd level have a d10. and so forth. Then for number of dice, again, across the board we went with 1 die per level of the spell caster. A simple, basic uniform spell damage (and healing) system that applies regardless.
And we did it because we got tired of this exact kind of argument, lol. They were clogging up our table and wrecking our playing time.
There were some unexpected side benefits, as well -- shield type spells now also roll dice, and that's the defensive power of the shield. Resistance in some cases works the same way.
But that is just as ludicrous a suggestion to make to the dev team as going to 1/2/3/4 d8 for Shillelagh. The idea isn't bad (no everyone would like it, no, but mechanically it is simpler), but it doesn't fit with the obvious goals of the spell.
It also means that at 1st level our Shillelagh only causes 1d6 damage. No matter how they rewrite the spell. But a 2nd level druid does 2d6. and so forth. With a 20th level Druid's Shillelagh doing 20d6 damage from a cantrip. So yeah, our system *really* doesn't work for the 5e ethos (even with me scaling it back some for the next campaign).
What the heck is with these forums and people trying to twist what people are trying to say.Where did i say that druids need to keep up with martials? What i said was that it's a bit peculiar that the druid specific cantrip is better on a martial who takes it as a feat then it would be for the druid. Am i really being that creptic with what i'm saying? English isn't my first language so if that's the case i apologize
Also you kinda lost me in the second part but you can't seriously be suggesting that a 17th lvl caster being able to do 4d8+5 damage in melee for both bonus and regular action on the first turn to be "obscenely overpowered and utterly outside the obvious expectations" Green flame blade exist and does weapon damage +3d8 with a added benefit of 3d8+mod against a nearby target at lvl 17 The change i suggested to shill is barely better then Primal Savagery at the cost of needing a bonus action and a action. How on earth is that overpowered?
First bolded: "-It doesn't mesh well with druids at all cause they don't have access to multi-attack meaning the damage increase for them is extremely minimal compared to meme martials builds who pick it up with a feat"
Second bolded: In terms of what the designers were aiming for when they altered the spell, absolutely. They did not aim for the spell to be that powerful or to scale that high at higher levels. IF they had, they would have done that or something more similar. They did not. They scaled it for a single point improvement each stage (until the last, when it is only a half point). So the design goal was to scale it to 1 point for each increase, not increase the number of dice (in this case, 4.5 points per stage), so your suggestion is a multiplier of three greater (which is overpowered).
The issue isn't how good the spell is in comparison to others, the issue is how the changes to the spell affect the spell. IF you want to go for comparisons to other things, then the endless argument about damage is going to start up, and if you want to go there, well, then it would be just as reasonable for me to argue that all cantrips should be limited to 1d4. Which, for the record, is not reasonable, because we aren't talking about all the other spells, we are talking about this one and the specific changes made to it, within its own self. THe only comparison that makes sense to use is prior versions of shillelagh.
Unless we are doing a broad range of comparisons of different spells to each other. Which would make one question why they don't have all the spells doing the same damage, across the board, and would devolve to the end result position my group took.
For the first bolded what i meant was that it's weird for a druid only cantrip to be better for extra attackers which the druid doesn't have acces to then to the druid himself. I honestly don't see how you have read it as anything other then that.
and the second isn't the entire point of these UA that we can leave feedback on their design goal so they might potentially change it for the better?
The design goal of the first druid playtest was to use templates. Was everyone who was against that in the wrong then? It clearly was in the design goal that wild shape had less options to choose from to save time so was suggesting to go back to stat blocks overpowered then?
The design goal of 2014 true strike is to give advantage to an attack. Is the new one overpowered cause it changed that design goal?
If the design goal is this sacred thing we can't suggest changes to why have a playtest at all? design goals can be flawed and should be discussed. You can't say my suggestion to the spell is overpowered when you can compare about evenly with other simular spells who aren't concidered overpowered. I'm not going to say that my suggestion is perfect, it isn't.
But to completely dismiss it cause it doesn't line up with the suggested change is extremely narrow minded and completely goes against the purpose of playtesting at all
Also extreme disagreement it shouldn't be compared to other spells. Not doing so is exactly how you get outliners who over/underperform. Comparing the spells to eachother is how they knew these were the ones who needed changes in the first place
When you compare things, across that martial-caster divide, that's going to happen. That said, now I see what you meant and I apologize.
Actually, no, that isn't the entire point. Which I hate to say because I hate using the word Actually.
It is the whole of our role in that process, but that certainly isn't the entire point. If it was, then the outcomes thus far would have been significantly different -- because the kind of feedback is what matters, not just feedback in general.
Also, the design goal was not to use templates. That was the methodology to achieve a design goal.
Design goals aren't sacred -- but they are a structure that places bounds for the purpose of other "systems and subsystems". Step outside your design goals and you have to rewrite other sections of the game, increasing your workload and requiring more effort and greater complexity. You may have been looking at just damage and usefulness in one way, they are looking at it through the lens of how that tweak alters the other systems in the game and what they have to do to address that. This is part of why they are only showing some possibilities, and what they want is feedback on that possibility -- constructive feedback that allows the to narrow things, not expand them.
Design goals can absolutely be flawed. Look at 4e. However, we don't get say in them. If we did, they would have offered a lot more options, and a great deal more information. you can try, at this point, to influence them -- as I noted, nothing is stopping you.
However, if you expect them to follow that advice, then prepare for disappointment, as the design goal conversations were had long before they even released the first UA.
I can say it is overpowered, and even explained why and how it is overpowered. You can cite other spells, and you can claim they are similar -- but to do so you also have to explain why they are similar, and if I fail to agree with that basis then your point is lost because we don't agree on what similar is . (I mean, bluntly, i might accept it for another cantrip level spell that empowers an object for druids as similar, but pretty much any spell that isn't a druid cantrip is not similar because it is not a druid cantrip, and if it doesn't empower an object for a druid, then it isn't similar, as an example of what I mean by "what is similar".)
And in that case, if you are arguing with me, it doesn't matter what others might think, because I am not arguing with them, I am arguing with you. the reverse holds true for me -- just because I know people who think the way I do doesn't mean squat, since you aren't arguing with them. We could likely agree that the developers might have some say, but they aren't here.
The purpose of playtesting depends on the given playtest. Dismissing it because it is overpowered (not because it disagrees with the goal, but because it is overpowered by 3 times the suggestion as a whole) is completely reasonable -- especially when you realize it is because they proposed a 1 point shift at each tier, and you propose a 4.5 shift at each tier.
in a different thread, there is a sidebar about weapon damage. One of the core basic rules about damage in the game is that it is based on "what is a normal person, and how much do weapons hurt them?" even the Devs have said that cantrips are overpowered, and usually about the same time they do, they also say that what is in the playtest and what everyone gives that magical 80% popularity rating on may not be in the final because they know everything is overpowered.
Which is a polite way of saying they are gonna nerf the shit outta things after the playtest. No input from us at that stage.
So, if you want to have an impact, then yes, you should operate within the "apparent* design goals if you want your suggestion to be taken seriously by the developers. I mean, if you just want to say the popular things, sure, go for the "cause 4.5 damage at each tier" -- I am sure it will be really popular among players and really hated by Dms and since Dms are only 20% of the whole, they will get creamed. But they want popularity for classes and features -- we have no clue what they are looking for when it comes to cantrips because all the basic presumptions are absent -- these aren't something as readily subject to popularity as Classes are, since they have a different way of interacting with systems in the game. IF they were, then they would have made far more significant changes to the cantrips.
Now, before you think I am just coming down on you, I will remind you I have an equally unlikely to be taken up suggestion that I provided, that I have playtested very extensively, and that is just as unlikely to be taken up because it, too, steps outside the design goal. That would be the Unified Spell Damage.
Let me ask you, would you like me to suggest it to them? Do you think they will embrace it with open arms/ Do you think it will be spectacularly popular?
If your answer is no to any of those, then you sorta understand where I am coming from, because the reasons for the no will be similar to the reasons i dismissed your suggestion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It's not fixing "druid cantrip is bad for druids".
In what way is it bad for druids? (Or, I guess, not the best for druids...)
If we're talking damage, it's the best resourceless melee option before level 5 (1d8 + 3 or 4 is better than 1d10), and it's still kinda competitive given AoOs and other side effects up until level 11. After that, Primal Savagery runs away with it, yeah. That's still a decent niche for a cantrip.
I think Shillelagh is pretty good as is. Let me tell you why.
Take Magic Initiate - gain True Strike.
Bonus Action - Cast Shillelagh.
Action Cast True Strike and attack. At first level gain the choice of bludgeoning, force, or radiant damage. At high level also deal a total of 5d6 + 5 damage.
There is more of a chance monsters are in the higher hp tresholds though. Orcs litteraly start the battle with the hp that favours the d12.
But that's mood, you litteraly proved my point
The point i was trying to make is not that a d12 is better then 2d6, but that a 2d6 isn't stricktly better then a d12. And your math proves that
I don't know where i mispoke that made people think i thought a d12 is just better but that wasn't the point i was trying to make.
I personally like the increased chance of oneshotting them and don't mind the 10-15% chance i can't 2 tap them. You don't have to, it's fine
But there are situations you are better of with a d12 and monsters being on a hp treshold of 10-12+your damage bonus is something that pretty much happen every single campaign
That's just a fact
Nobody is arguing there isn't this edge-case, what we are telling you and what you're not getting - the edge case is such a small scenario that it's irrelevant when saying the damage die are equal, one of these damage dies is clearly vastly more reliable than the other and does consistently higher damage.
But what you also failed to realise is that I purposefully went out for a scenario that found your 1d12 the most favourable conditions, there is literally no conditions more favourable and you'd still want to use the greatsword if you're going by the maths but I'd hoped you would realise from basic maths that the 1d12 is a woefully inferior option. So let's say there are two taxi drivers, you have to make a journey (you have no choice) and you get offered the following two terrible taxi drivers.
Taxi driver A has a 8.5% chance of making it to destination ahead of time, a 40% chance to arrive on time, a 31.5% chance to turn up late and a 19.75% chance of failing the journey and a 0.25% of killing you.
Taxi driver b has a 2.5% chance of making it to the destination ahead of time, a 65% chance to arrive on time, a 27.5% chance to turn up late and a 5% chance of failing the journey.
With no other choice, which do you choose? You naturally choose b, Is getting to your destination a head of time actually that much better? It's a nicer result but the overall negatives are far far worse.
But since I think you'll still try to argue against this. Let's stick to an Orc with full HP (15) you have a 1/12 chance to kill in one hit in that scenario with the greataxe or 1/36 with the greatsword, but what is the chance that you don't kill in two hits with either weapon? Did you even care to consider? Well modifier is +3, so over two hits that is 6 damage, you've got to get a total of 9 in the two weapon attacks, so in the case of the greataxe, you have a 19.4% chance to not kill with a greataxe in 2 hits, now for the greatsword it is a 5.4% chance to not kill in 2 hits.
The difference in your chance to kill in one hit is 5.5% higher but your chance to not kill in two hits, is 14% higher, so is that really better? The answer is obviously no. Further to this, in this scenario, it is impossible to not kill in three hits with the 2d6, but the 1d12... it is possible, it's about a 0.23% chance (or just over 1 in 400) but it still exists.
Your problem is, you're stuck continually searching for a Confirmation Bias to ignore the obvious facts in front of you, the 1d12 is inferior to the 2d6.
If you want the equation for the percentages it is:
If you need an explanation on how this works, on the D12, if you get a 7 on the first die (1 in 12) you still fail to kill on a 1 (1 in 12), if you get a 5 on the first die (1 in 12), you still fail to kill on a 1, 2 or 3 (3 in 12). Alternatively on the 2d6, if get a 5 on the first roll (4 in 36 chance) then you fail on a 2 or 3 (1/36+2/36=3/36).
as for the 0.23%, there are four combinations that fail to kill in 3 hits, 1, 1 & 1; 1,1 & 2; 1, 2 & 1; 2, 1 & 1. 4/(12*12*12) = 0.002314815 (or 0.23%)
I don't love the new Shillelagh, but mostly because it behaves differently to all other cantrip scaling. If it started at 1d8 and increased by 1d8 at 5th, 11th, and so on, it'd match the scaling of other cantrips like Booming Blade, and would feel so much better!
Currently it stacks with True Strike to be a pretty decent combo. I'm sure it would never do so if they increased the dice scaling like that. Force damage might be worth it even if it has a lower damage output. We need to wait to see the UA with monsters to know for sure...
I think Shillelagh is pretty good as is. Let me tell you why.
Take Magic Initiate - gain True Strike.
Bonus Action - Cast Shillelagh.
Action Cast True Strike and attack. At first level gain the choice of bludgeoning, force, or radiant damage. At high level also deal a total of 5d6 + 5 damage.
Not bad.
The problem with this would be that True Strike is not currently on a WIS-based spellcaster's list. With the reversion to class lists (and thus I am assuming that we would need to use the 2014 version of Magic Initiate), then it would be impossible to use WIS as a spellcasting ability for True Strike through that feat. Of course, since True Strike is a divination cantrip, it would theoretically be possible to get it through Fey Touched (if it will remain the same) and thus possibly use WIS as the spellcasting ability.
With the reversion to class lists (and thus I am assuming that we would need to use the 2014 version of Magic Initiate), then it would be impossible to use WIS as a spellcasting ability for True Strike through that feat.
I strongly suspect they will update the feat to match the UA version, either using "Wizard, Cleric, or Druid" class spell lists, or even recreate arcane/divine/primal lists for the feat. They probably want the feat to still use all the more modern features and let you pick the spellcasting stat.
Magic Initiate was already published in a playtest, the first if memory serves. And in that version it let you choose your spellcasting ability. The final version will be like this, there is no doubt about that. What will change will be the choice of lists, which will again be by class.
That version technically died with Arcane, Divine, and Primal Spell List. We may see a new version similar in 2024, but we won’t know until we get there because it’s not something that merits another round of playtest.
I imagine that they don't want to deal with a fighter who takes a feat to learn Shillelagh and hits 4 times per round with it - or a Ranger taking the Druidic combat style where they get a couple cantrips then stacking it with other damage bonuses. The whole point of "backwards compatibility" means that in many campaigns those feats won't be going away until a rewrite or a specific errata delisting them comes along.
Personally I think they should just increase the level 17 damage to 2d8 - is it really THAT bad compared to 9th level spells?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For the first bolded what i meant was that it's weird for a druid only cantrip to be better for extra attackers which the druid doesn't have acces to then to the druid himself. I honestly don't see how you have read it as anything other then that.
and the second isn't the entire point of these UA that we can leave feedback on their design goal so they might potentially change it for the better?
The design goal of the first druid playtest was to use templates. Was everyone who was against that in the wrong then? It clearly was in the design goal that wild shape had less options to choose from to save time so was suggesting to go back to stat blocks overpowered then?
The design goal of 2014 true strike is to give advantage to an attack. Is the new one overpowered cause it changed that design goal?
If the design goal is this sacred thing we can't suggest changes to why have a playtest at all?
design goals can be flawed and should be discussed. You can't say my suggestion to the spell is overpowered when you can compare about evenly with other simular spells who aren't concidered overpowered. I'm not going to say that my suggestion is perfect, it isn't.
But to completely dismiss it cause it doesn't line up with the suggested change is extremely narrow minded and completely goes against the purpose of playtesting at all
Also extreme disagreement it shouldn't be compared to other spells. Not doing so is exactly how you get outliners who over/underperform. Comparing the spells to eachother is how they knew these were the ones who needed changes in the first place
That's totally fair.
As it stands, I like that it's a good cantrip for martials, and I bet that's part of why they made the changes they did. So I wouldn't want to see its "druidness" come at the expense of that. I could see the scaling being a tiny bit better to compete with Primal Savagery for druids, but... of course, you could just make it a D20 of damage at level 17, which is a big bump at a level where cantrips don't matter very much anyway.
I don't think they will ever use a d20 for damage to prevent confusement.
But it is true that it's not necessarily a bad thing that shill is the primary cantrip for druid/martial combinations. That does fill a nice niche where primal savagery already covers the mellee option for standerd druids
You are right
Yes, it's a problem. The point of the 2024 book is to fix problems, and this... doesn't fix a problem. It doesn't really make the problem worse, but it doesn't fix it.
OK...what problem is it not fixing?
(Is this "just" another "rangers and paladins shouldn't be able to melee with their casting stat!" thing?)
You misunderstand my point entirely. I'm not actually using the iron golem example that I gave earlier as an argument, I'm using your reaction to it. You said that you actually took issue with the fact that 17th level fire bolt is worse than 11th level fire bolt when fighting an iron golem. I think that the vast majority of people don't have that same issue, and furthermore that this disconnect extends to the new shillelagh.
The point that you missed is this: most people see something as an upgrade if it's better over the course of a campaign, whereas you only see something as an upgrade if it's better in every situation. Because of this fundamental disconnect, you're not going to convince anybody of the former idea that the latter is correct.
Can you respond to this point?
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)
It's not fixing "druid cantrip is bad for druids".
I wouldn’t say it’s “bad” for druids, it’s just not particularly good for them either while simultaneously being better for other classes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
When you compare things, across that martial-caster divide, that's going to happen. That said, now I see what you meant and I apologize.
Actually, no, that isn't the entire point. Which I hate to say because I hate using the word Actually.
It is the whole of our role in that process, but that certainly isn't the entire point. If it was, then the outcomes thus far would have been significantly different -- because the kind of feedback is what matters, not just feedback in general.
Also, the design goal was not to use templates. That was the methodology to achieve a design goal.
Design goals aren't sacred -- but they are a structure that places bounds for the purpose of other "systems and subsystems". Step outside your design goals and you have to rewrite other sections of the game, increasing your workload and requiring more effort and greater complexity. You may have been looking at just damage and usefulness in one way, they are looking at it through the lens of how that tweak alters the other systems in the game and what they have to do to address that. This is part of why they are only showing some possibilities, and what they want is feedback on that possibility -- constructive feedback that allows the to narrow things, not expand them.
Design goals can absolutely be flawed. Look at 4e. However, we don't get say in them. If we did, they would have offered a lot more options, and a great deal more information. you can try, at this point, to influence them -- as I noted, nothing is stopping you.
However, if you expect them to follow that advice, then prepare for disappointment, as the design goal conversations were had long before they even released the first UA.
I can say it is overpowered, and even explained why and how it is overpowered. You can cite other spells, and you can claim they are similar -- but to do so you also have to explain why they are similar, and if I fail to agree with that basis then your point is lost because we don't agree on what similar is . (I mean, bluntly, i might accept it for another cantrip level spell that empowers an object for druids as similar, but pretty much any spell that isn't a druid cantrip is not similar because it is not a druid cantrip, and if it doesn't empower an object for a druid, then it isn't similar, as an example of what I mean by "what is similar".)
And in that case, if you are arguing with me, it doesn't matter what others might think, because I am not arguing with them, I am arguing with you. the reverse holds true for me -- just because I know people who think the way I do doesn't mean squat, since you aren't arguing with them. We could likely agree that the developers might have some say, but they aren't here.
The purpose of playtesting depends on the given playtest. Dismissing it because it is overpowered (not because it disagrees with the goal, but because it is overpowered by 3 times the suggestion as a whole) is completely reasonable -- especially when you realize it is because they proposed a 1 point shift at each tier, and you propose a 4.5 shift at each tier.
in a different thread, there is a sidebar about weapon damage. One of the core basic rules about damage in the game is that it is based on "what is a normal person, and how much do weapons hurt them?" even the Devs have said that cantrips are overpowered, and usually about the same time they do, they also say that what is in the playtest and what everyone gives that magical 80% popularity rating on may not be in the final because they know everything is overpowered.
Which is a polite way of saying they are gonna nerf the shit outta things after the playtest. No input from us at that stage.
So, if you want to have an impact, then yes, you should operate within the "apparent* design goals if you want your suggestion to be taken seriously by the developers. I mean, if you just want to say the popular things, sure, go for the "cause 4.5 damage at each tier" -- I am sure it will be really popular among players and really hated by Dms and since Dms are only 20% of the whole, they will get creamed. But they want popularity for classes and features -- we have no clue what they are looking for when it comes to cantrips because all the basic presumptions are absent -- these aren't something as readily subject to popularity as Classes are, since they have a different way of interacting with systems in the game. IF they were, then they would have made far more significant changes to the cantrips.
Now, before you think I am just coming down on you, I will remind you I have an equally unlikely to be taken up suggestion that I provided, that I have playtested very extensively, and that is just as unlikely to be taken up because it, too, steps outside the design goal. That would be the Unified Spell Damage.
Let me ask you, would you like me to suggest it to them? Do you think they will embrace it with open arms/ Do you think it will be spectacularly popular?
If your answer is no to any of those, then you sorta understand where I am coming from, because the reasons for the no will be similar to the reasons i dismissed your suggestion.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
In what way is it bad for druids? (Or, I guess, not the best for druids...)
If we're talking damage, it's the best resourceless melee option before level 5 (1d8 + 3 or 4 is better than 1d10), and it's still kinda competitive given AoOs and other side effects up until level 11. After that, Primal Savagery runs away with it, yeah. That's still a decent niche for a cantrip.
I think Shillelagh is pretty good as is. Let me tell you why.
Take Magic Initiate - gain True Strike.
Bonus Action - Cast Shillelagh.
Action Cast True Strike and attack. At first level gain the choice of bludgeoning, force, or radiant damage. At high level also deal a total of 5d6 + 5 damage.
Not bad.
Nobody is arguing there isn't this edge-case, what we are telling you and what you're not getting - the edge case is such a small scenario that it's irrelevant when saying the damage die are equal, one of these damage dies is clearly vastly more reliable than the other and does consistently higher damage.
But what you also failed to realise is that I purposefully went out for a scenario that found your 1d12 the most favourable conditions, there is literally no conditions more favourable and you'd still want to use the greatsword if you're going by the maths but I'd hoped you would realise from basic maths that the 1d12 is a woefully inferior option. So let's say there are two taxi drivers, you have to make a journey (you have no choice) and you get offered the following two terrible taxi drivers.
Taxi driver A has a 8.5% chance of making it to destination ahead of time, a 40% chance to arrive on time, a 31.5% chance to turn up late and a 19.75% chance of failing the journey and a 0.25% of killing you.
Taxi driver b has a 2.5% chance of making it to the destination ahead of time, a 65% chance to arrive on time, a 27.5% chance to turn up late and a 5% chance of failing the journey.
With no other choice, which do you choose? You naturally choose b, Is getting to your destination a head of time actually that much better? It's a nicer result but the overall negatives are far far worse.
But since I think you'll still try to argue against this. Let's stick to an Orc with full HP (15) you have a 1/12 chance to kill in one hit in that scenario with the greataxe or 1/36 with the greatsword, but what is the chance that you don't kill in two hits with either weapon? Did you even care to consider? Well modifier is +3, so over two hits that is 6 damage, you've got to get a total of 9 in the two weapon attacks, so in the case of the greataxe, you have a 19.4% chance to not kill with a greataxe in 2 hits, now for the greatsword it is a 5.4% chance to not kill in 2 hits.
The difference in your chance to kill in one hit is 5.5% higher but your chance to not kill in two hits, is 14% higher, so is that really better? The answer is obviously no. Further to this, in this scenario, it is impossible to not kill in three hits with the 2d6, but the 1d12... it is possible, it's about a 0.23% chance (or just over 1 in 400) but it still exists.
Your problem is, you're stuck continually searching for a Confirmation Bias to ignore the obvious facts in front of you, the 1d12 is inferior to the 2d6.
If you want the equation for the percentages it is:
d12: (1/12)*(1/12)+(1/12)*(2/12)+(1/12)*(3/12)+(1/12)*(4/12)+(1/12)*(5/12)+(1/12)*(6/12)+(1/12)*(7/12) = 0.194444444 (or 19.4%)
2d6: (5/36)*(1/36)+(4/36)*(3/36)+(3/36)*(6/36)+(2/36)*(10/36)+(1/36)*(15/36) = 0.054012346 (or 5.4%)
If you need an explanation on how this works, on the D12, if you get a 7 on the first die (1 in 12) you still fail to kill on a 1 (1 in 12), if you get a 5 on the first die (1 in 12), you still fail to kill on a 1, 2 or 3 (3 in 12). Alternatively on the 2d6, if get a 5 on the first roll (4 in 36 chance) then you fail on a 2 or 3 (1/36+2/36=3/36).
as for the 0.23%, there are four combinations that fail to kill in 3 hits, 1, 1 & 1; 1,1 & 2; 1, 2 & 1; 2, 1 & 1. 4/(12*12*12) = 0.002314815 (or 0.23%)
I don't love the new Shillelagh, but mostly because it behaves differently to all other cantrip scaling. If it started at 1d8 and increased by 1d8 at 5th, 11th, and so on, it'd match the scaling of other cantrips like Booming Blade, and would feel so much better!
Resident Mushroom 🍄
Currently it stacks with True Strike to be a pretty decent combo. I'm sure it would never do so if they increased the dice scaling like that. Force damage might be worth it even if it has a lower damage output. We need to wait to see the UA with monsters to know for sure...
Change it so it turns sticks as is but also increases natural weapons but with one die type down in damage.
The problem with this would be that True Strike is not currently on a WIS-based spellcaster's list. With the reversion to class lists (and thus I am assuming that we would need to use the 2014 version of Magic Initiate), then it would be impossible to use WIS as a spellcasting ability for True Strike through that feat. Of course, since True Strike is a divination cantrip, it would theoretically be possible to get it through Fey Touched (if it will remain the same) and thus possibly use WIS as the spellcasting ability.
I strongly suspect they will update the feat to match the UA version, either using "Wizard, Cleric, or Druid" class spell lists, or even recreate arcane/divine/primal lists for the feat. They probably want the feat to still use all the more modern features and let you pick the spellcasting stat.
Magic Initiate was already published in a playtest, the first if memory serves. And in that version it let you choose your spellcasting ability. The final version will be like this, there is no doubt about that. What will change will be the choice of lists, which will again be by class.
That version technically died with Arcane, Divine, and Primal Spell List. We may see a new version similar in 2024, but we won’t know until we get there because it’s not something that merits another round of playtest.
I imagine that they don't want to deal with a fighter who takes a feat to learn Shillelagh and hits 4 times per round with it - or a Ranger taking the Druidic combat style where they get a couple cantrips then stacking it with other damage bonuses. The whole point of "backwards compatibility" means that in many campaigns those feats won't be going away until a rewrite or a specific errata delisting them comes along.
Personally I think they should just increase the level 17 damage to 2d8 - is it really THAT bad compared to 9th level spells?