I think the 5.0 version (1d8+casting stat per hit) is fine. All it needs is to last 10 minutes instead of 1 so that people aren't spamming it constantly in an immersion-breaking way.
Aasimar Healing Hands (increases by 1 every 4 character levels).
Scales by what? By 1 _die_ per 4 levels.
Second Wind increases, but it does not scale. It is always a constant added to a d10, meaning its scale is always 1 (the single event / die roll). Its rate of growth is a simple constant added to a random variable, and that random variable is never changed, which means the scale doesn't change. And it is the number of events that is being talked about when you talk about scale. Such as things that grow exponentially: their scaling is exponential, not a straight line distribution from base value to max value. And when you're talking about those things, you don't care about constants, you only care about the number of events. Because over time, the number of events/transactions/etc. (the scale) matters far more than the constants. For example, you don't measure scale in how long it takes a single transaction to process, you measure scale in how many transactions you can process per second (and the two are only barely related, and only in the most trivial case). And before you say "but how it's used in other fields of analysis don't matter" -- where do you think the term comes from?
Consider a feature that is 1d10 at 1st level, and 2d10 at 20th level. It only scaled up once. A feature that adds a d4 every 4 levels scales more, but ends up at the same maximum. It scaled up 4 times. The end potential isn't the scaling. The number of events is the scaling.
Call Lightning increases by 5.5 damage
Fireball increases by 3.5 over the same time period.
Neither of these scale with character level. They scale with spell slot (and your attempt to reframe that doesn't change it). How do they scale? By adding 1 die per spell slot level.
Does one of them have better maximum potential? yes. But they scale the same: add 1 die per spell slot level above the base. The total potential increase isn't the scaling alone (scale is _never_ the complete analysis), it's the die type. You need both the scale (number of events: number of dice rolled) and the coefficients (sizing of events: die size) to get the full picture.
Aasimar Healing Hands (increases by 1 every 4 character levels).
Scales by what? By 1 _die_ per 4 levels.
Second Wind increases, but it does not scale. It is always a constant added to a d10, meaning its scale is always 1 (the single event / die roll). Its rate of growth is a simple constant added to a random variable, and that random variable is never changed, which means the scale doesn't change. And it is the number of events that is being talked about when you talk about scale. Such as things that grow exponentially: their scaling is exponential, not a straight line distribution from base value to max value. And when you're talking about those things, you don't care about constants, you only care about the number of events. Because over time, the number of events/transactions/etc. (the scale) matters far more than the constants. For example, you don't measure scale in how long it takes a single transaction to process, you measure scale in how many transactions you can process per second (and the two are only barely related, and only in the most trivial case). And before you say "but how it's used in other fields of analysis don't matter" -- where do you think the term comes from?
Consider a feature that is 1d10 at 1st level, and 2d10 at 20th level. It only scaled up once. A feature that adds a d4 every 4 levels scales more, but ends up at the same maximum. It scaled up 4 times. The end potential isn't the scaling. The number of events is the scaling.
Call Lightning increases by 5.5 damage
Fireball increases by 3.5 over the same time period.
Neither of these scale with character level. They scale with spell slot (and your attempt to reframe that doesn't change it). How do they scale? By adding 1 die per spell slot level.
Does one of them have better maximum potential? yes. But they scale the same: add 1 die per spell slot level above the base. The total potential increase isn't the scaling alone (scale is _never_ the complete analysis), it's the die type. You need both the scale (number of events: number of dice rolled) and the coefficients (sizing of events: die size) to get the full picture.
Anything that increases with level scales with level. Whether that is by +1 per level or +1d4 per level or 1d12 per level. Scaling means to increase with level. Saying something "scales better" just means that the increase from level to level is just better than something else. For example adding a d4 per level is better than a static +1 per level. Both are scaling but the d4 is better scaling. D6 is better scaling then d4 so on and so forth.
Since spell slots get bigger with level things that scale with spell slots also scale with level, though to a lesser extent than other at will effects.
So yes chain lightning scales better than fireball. They both scale but growing by a d10 is better than growing by a d6.
That's not the contention. The contention is whether or not "growing" (especially overall growth) and "scaling" are the same thing. They're not. Things can grow without scaling. Things can scale without individual elements growing.
You're continuing to repeat your pedantic argument despite the evidence above that you are wrong. Language is an evolving dynamic system that shifts according to consensus understanding, we have 6:1 votes that "scaling" in D&D is used the way I and Aquilontune defined it, not your definition. Therefore your definition is wrong. Language exists in order to communicate ideas, if you are unable to get across your idea clearly, then you are using it wrong.
But this is an entirely side argument to the main point that your proposal is biased against Ranger & Druid by giving them an objectively worse cantrip than all the others. That's even before we consider that it completely excludes non-casters (Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian) which is again bad for the game by widening the caster-martial divide.
TL:DR Your definition is wrong, and your proposal is bad.
the main point that your proposal is biased against Ranger & Druid by giving them an objectively worse cantrip than all the others.
Then do something constructive and good-faith by suggesting a fix. What would you do to fix it? Starting with constructive criticism is a much better path than starting with personal attacks about my game group, and its play style, and distorted lists of grievance (that, by your own definition of the terms, repeats the same item to make the complaint seem more extensive).
That's even before we consider that it completely excludes non-casters (Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian) which is again bad for the game by widening the caster-martial divide.
As cantrips, they can easily access them if they choose to (especially Rogue and Fighter). It just costs them a Feat (or not even a Feat, for the EK). Further, the existence of the current True Strike cantrip also undermines this statement: my proposals are refinements of that cantrip. Anything they do to the game (overall) is already there, not an issue I have created. Your contention (in this line, which was amazingly absent from your initial criticism) isn't with me, it's with the designers of the game.
The True Strike cantrip exists, with or without my proposal, and it is the crux of your issue in that sentence -- not my proposal.
TL:DR Your definition is wrong,
My use and definition of the word are not wrong, they just aren't yours. And my definition is also the one where the term comes from, and still in use (in other words: not an obsoleted definition). And your own initial complaint, which separated the concept into two different items on your list, actually indicates that you know the term isn't about overall damage. You can't have it both ways: either you knew they were separate things by listing the idea twice, or your list was intentionally distorted and disingenuous by listing (what you think is) the same thing twice.
The "is it growth or is it scaling" debate has to be one of the most pedantic/inconsequential I've read on these boards and that's saying something 🤔
Bottom line is that Shillelagh increasing on two dimensions at once isn't necessary. If they really want it to be more useful for druids and clerics than anyone else just make it a bladetrip clubtrip that requires the Magic action, that way the damage dice can be the primary measure of power. If they'd prefer it to be better for Rangers and Monks, keep the existing design where it uses the Attack action and works with Extra Attack but the dice stay static. And they should have the same thought process for every weapon-based cantrip.
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
As a class (like the Paladin and Ranger)? Yeah, a big gap. As a subclass? The EK, AT, and some (most?) Artificer subclasses fit into that role, as well as some Warlock builds, and two (or three?) Bard subclasses.
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
I thought they fixed the EK to do this?
Depending how you see it the pally smites are definitely closer to this now as well (slash and banish...).
Bonus action spells on anyone with extra attack is very limited casting and attacking.
Honestly, I would argue there are a decent number of spell blades all with different limits on slash, casting or variety of both. But you aren't getting a spell blade that is as good at casting as a caster or as good as fighting as martials. Action economy is always going to be the main limiter because flexibility is the main benefit.
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
I thought they fixed the EK to do this?
Depending how you see it the pally smites are definitely closer to this now as well (slash and banish...).
Bonus action spells on anyone with extra attack is very limited casting and attacking.
There's probably also some interesting design space for a class/subclass that can cast and take one bonus action attack. (probably defense/area control rather than attack enhancement)
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
I thought they fixed the EK to do this?
Depending how you see it the pally smites are definitely closer to this now as well (slash and banish...).
Bonus action spells on anyone with extra attack is very limited casting and attacking.
Honestly, I would argue there are a decent number of spell blades all with different limits on slash, casting or variety of both. But you aren't getting a spell blade that is as good at casting as a caster or as good as fighting as martials. Action economy is always going to be the main limiter because flexibility is the main benefit.
The problem is in every last single current "Spellblade" subclass, the class's entire game plan is either "cast unless you have no other choice, in which case attack" or "attack unless you have no other choice, in which case spell." Spells and swords remain distinct, separate, and as unmixable as oil and water. even the Bladesinger, the closest they've ever gotten, is "make one attack, and then cast a minor spell, in the same action." The 'flexibility' offered by being a fake spellblade never actually matters because making use of that flexibility is a strictly inferior game plan to just doing what your class is meant to actually be doing. After all, when was the last time you saw a ranger or a paladin actually cast a spell in combat that wasn't Hunter's Mark?
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
I thought they fixed the EK to do this?
Depending how you see it the pally smites are definitely closer to this now as well (slash and banish...).
Bonus action spells on anyone with extra attack is very limited casting and attacking.
Honestly, I would argue there are a decent number of spell blades all with different limits on slash, casting or variety of both. But you aren't getting a spell blade that is as good at casting as a caster or as good as fighting as martials. Action economy is always going to be the main limiter because flexibility is the main benefit.
The problem is in every last single current "Spellblade" subclass, the class's entire game plan is either "cast unless you have no other choice, in which case attack" or "attack unless you have no other choice, in which case spell." Spells and swords remain distinct, separate, and as unmixable as oil and water. even the Bladesinger, the closest they've ever gotten, is "make one attack, and then cast a minor spell, in the same action." The 'flexibility' offered by being a fake spellblade never actually matters because making use of that flexibility is a strictly inferior game plan to just doing what your class is meant to actually be doing. After all, when was the last time you saw a ranger or a paladin actually cast a spell in combat that wasn't Hunter's Mark?
EK now can replace one attack with a cantrip, and there are a number of them that are better than just doing a basic attack, new true strike, green flame blade and, booming blade. Also, toll of the dead, and various AOE cantrips would be worthwhile. (BTW ts, gfb, bb are literally an attack and spell at the same time) And EK is looking very strong currently.
the main thing stopping ranger from casting spells is they through concentration on many things, zephyr strike, esnaring strike, lightning arrow, hail of thorns, would be worth casting if it didnt require concentration. Especially since the class theoretically should have hunters mark up at all times, says the level 1 and level 20 features.
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
I thought they fixed the EK to do this?
Depending how you see it the pally smites are definitely closer to this now as well (slash and banish...).
Bonus action spells on anyone with extra attack is very limited casting and attacking.
Honestly, I would argue there are a decent number of spell blades all with different limits on slash, casting or variety of both. But you aren't getting a spell blade that is as good at casting as a caster or as good as fighting as martials. Action economy is always going to be the main limiter because flexibility is the main benefit.
The problem is in every last single current "Spellblade" subclass, the class's entire game plan is either "cast unless you have no other choice, in which case attack" or "attack unless you have no other choice, in which case spell." Spells and swords remain distinct, separate, and as unmixable as oil and water. even the Bladesinger, the closest they've ever gotten, is "make one attack, and then cast a minor spell, in the same action." The 'flexibility' offered by being a fake spellblade never actually matters because making use of that flexibility is a strictly inferior game plan to just doing what your class is meant to actually be doing. After all, when was the last time you saw a ranger or a paladin actually cast a spell in combat that wasn't Hunter's Mark?
All the time, actually. Misty Step is a favourite for getting where they want to be, Spirit Shroud, Zephyr Strike, Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Faerie Fire, Haste, Ashardalon's Stride, and Summon Beast/Conjure Animals have all made appearances at my table. I've also had a ranger x cleric MC who routinely cast Healing Word.
The problem with implementing your vision of a "spell blade" is that both their weapon attack and their spells need to be halved in power to maintain their power balance when they use both at the same time. This is the current problem with WotC's bandaid solution of "replace one attack with a cantrip", cantrips are balanced to be slightly less powerful than a martial making 2 attacks with their action since cantrips cost a full action, thus replacing only 1 attack with a cantrip grants a big boost in power. There is an easy solution to this: making cantrips scale on your caster level rather than your character level, then you could allow "spell blades" to cast a cantrip and make an attack at the same time.
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
I thought they fixed the EK to do this?
Depending how you see it the pally smites are definitely closer to this now as well (slash and banish...).
Bonus action spells on anyone with extra attack is very limited casting and attacking.
Honestly, I would argue there are a decent number of spell blades all with different limits on slash, casting or variety of both. But you aren't getting a spell blade that is as good at casting as a caster or as good as fighting as martials. Action economy is always going to be the main limiter because flexibility is the main benefit.
The problem is in every last single current "Spellblade" subclass, the class's entire game plan is either "cast unless you have no other choice, in which case attack" or "attack unless you have no other choice, in which case spell." Spells and swords remain distinct, separate, and as unmixable as oil and water. even the Bladesinger, the closest they've ever gotten, is "make one attack, and then cast a minor spell, in the same action." The 'flexibility' offered by being a fake spellblade never actually matters because making use of that flexibility is a strictly inferior game plan to just doing what your class is meant to actually be doing. After all, when was the last time you saw a ranger or a paladin actually cast a spell in combat that wasn't Hunter's Mark?
This strictly untrue. A bladepact warlock is not usually better off burning through their precious few slots rather than casting one big powerful concentration spell and then mixing it up with their blade, or casting a defensive spell and then going blade. A Ranger who only casts hunter's mark in combat is probably using the spells for all kinds of useful things outside of combat, but if they want to maximize effectiveness IN combat. I see them cast spike growth, Zephyr strike, conjure animals, All kinds of things. Paladin's I see cast less but I also don't think their spell list is particularly great, but the new smite options really fix that. Bladesinger wizards do all kinds of crazy things. And EK is looking really good with the attack + cantrip and at higher levels Attack + leveled spell.
If you want a full on 3rd level spell + attack on the same turn at level 5 you aren't going to get that because it would be blatantly unbalanced. Like I said we have MANY ways to do the "blade sword" all of them have DIFFERENT limitations and having one that doesn't have some sort of hard limitation just isn't going to happen because then it would invalidate basically every other class in the game.
Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
I thought they fixed the EK to do this?
Depending how you see it the pally smites are definitely closer to this now as well (slash and banish...).
Bonus action spells on anyone with extra attack is very limited casting and attacking.
Honestly, I would argue there are a decent number of spell blades all with different limits on slash, casting or variety of both. But you aren't getting a spell blade that is as good at casting as a caster or as good as fighting as martials. Action economy is always going to be the main limiter because flexibility is the main benefit.
..,.............. The 'flexibility' offered by being a fake spellblade never actually matters because making use of that flexibility is a strictly inferior game plan to just doing what your class is meant to actually be doing. After all, when was the last time you saw a ranger or a paladin actually cast a spell in combat that wasn't Hunter's Mark?
I find rangers almost always cast one spell per encounter that changes the field tactics. Which spells work will change with the build and encounter design. Fog cloud can really make a difference if you know your enemy's vision and actions. Sometimes just long strider or asharladons Stride or jump gives a tactical advantage.
Amost every ranger spell has its use and if your relying on HM your probably going to have less fun because it's only sometimes optimal.
I find rangers almost always cast one spell per encounter that changes the field tactics. Which spells work will change with the build and encounter design. Fog cloud can really make a difference if you know your enemy's vision and actions. Sometimes just long strider or asharladons Stride or jump gives a tactical advantage.
Amost every ranger spell has its use and if your relying on HM your probably going to have less fun because it's only sometimes optimal.
Spells like HM and Hex (concentration spells that are always useful, even if you might do better situationally) ought to be avoided in class design. By existing, they reduce spell usage; because they're easy, you cast them round 1, and then don't use anything else because it'll ruin your damage boost. If the class needs an always-on damage boost, then just give it to them as a class feature.
I agree. I find I tend to quit using hex after a few levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I find rangers almost always cast one spell per encounter that changes the field tactics. Which spells work will change with the build and encounter design. Fog cloud can really make a difference if you know your enemy's vision and actions. Sometimes just long strider or asharladons Stride or jump gives a tactical advantage.
Amost every ranger spell has its use and if your relying on HM your probably going to have less fun because it's only sometimes optimal.
Spells like HM and Hex (concentration spells that are always useful, even if you might do better situationally) ought to be avoided in class design. By existing, they reduce spell usage; because they're easy, you cast them round 1, and then don't use anything else because it'll ruin your damage boost. If the class needs an always-on damage boost, then just give it to them as a class feature.
That is why the no concentration version worked. I think it should have been deployed a bit later like level 5/6 but it works in the design as it does not stop you from casting other spells or dropping a spell that is signature to the class. There are other ways to do it, like just stop making them spells but bonus actions or magic actions. Or some kind of non action for them like object interact, draw weapon style action. with other limits like x times per day, they last 1 hour period.
I would not want to just give them a class future you do 1d6 more damage per attack as a class feature. it should have some limits in how its used, limits define and shape a classes personality as much as their strengths do
I find rangers almost always cast one spell per encounter that changes the field tactics. Which spells work will change with the build and encounter design. Fog cloud can really make a difference if you know your enemy's vision and actions. Sometimes just long strider or asharladons Stride or jump gives a tactical advantage.
Amost every ranger spell has its use and if your relying on HM your probably going to have less fun because it's only sometimes optimal.
Spells like HM and Hex (concentration spells that are always useful, even if you might do better situationally) ought to be avoided in class design. By existing, they reduce spell usage; because they're easy, you cast them round 1, and then don't use anything else because it'll ruin your damage boost. If the class needs an always-on damage boost, then just give it to them as a class feature.
That is why the no concentration version worked. I think it should have been deployed a bit later like level 5/6 but it works in the design as it does not stop you from casting other spells or dropping a spell that is signature to the class. There are other ways to do it, like just stop making them spells but bonus actions or magic actions. Or some kind of non action for them like object interact, draw weapon style action. with other limits like x times per day, they last 1 hour period.
I would not want to just give them a class future you do 1d6 more damage per attack as a class feature. it should have some limits in how its used, limits define and shape a classes personality as much as their strengths do
One thing I have always found about hex is if I am planning on using it with a warlock then I am also looking at spells that don't need concentration. With Fiends that means I am looking at fireballs and fire shield and the like. For Archfey it means I want to use blink and plant growth for a lot of other warlocks I am looking at dispel magic, counter spell, armor of agathys, the charm sweet of spells. Warlocks, in particular, feel kind of limited by concentration, but being able to concentrate on a spell through a rest does at least extend your casting a bit, even if it also finds ways to limit it at the same time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the 5.0 version (1d8+casting stat per hit) is fine. All it needs is to last 10 minutes instead of 1 so that people aren't spamming it constantly in an immersion-breaking way.
Scales by what? By 1 _die_ per 4 levels.
Second Wind increases, but it does not scale. It is always a constant added to a d10, meaning its scale is always 1 (the single event / die roll). Its rate of growth is a simple constant added to a random variable, and that random variable is never changed, which means the scale doesn't change. And it is the number of events that is being talked about when you talk about scale. Such as things that grow exponentially: their scaling is exponential, not a straight line distribution from base value to max value. And when you're talking about those things, you don't care about constants, you only care about the number of events. Because over time, the number of events/transactions/etc. (the scale) matters far more than the constants. For example, you don't measure scale in how long it takes a single transaction to process, you measure scale in how many transactions you can process per second (and the two are only barely related, and only in the most trivial case). And before you say "but how it's used in other fields of analysis don't matter" -- where do you think the term comes from?
Consider a feature that is 1d10 at 1st level, and 2d10 at 20th level. It only scaled up once. A feature that adds a d4 every 4 levels scales more, but ends up at the same maximum. It scaled up 4 times. The end potential isn't the scaling. The number of events is the scaling.
Neither of these scale with character level. They scale with spell slot (and your attempt to reframe that doesn't change it). How do they scale? By adding 1 die per spell slot level.
Does one of them have better maximum potential? yes. But they scale the same: add 1 die per spell slot level above the base. The total potential increase isn't the scaling alone (scale is _never_ the complete analysis), it's the die type. You need both the scale (number of events: number of dice rolled) and the coefficients (sizing of events: die size) to get the full picture.
Anything that increases with level scales with level. Whether that is by +1 per level or +1d4 per level or 1d12 per level. Scaling means to increase with level. Saying something "scales better" just means that the increase from level to level is just better than something else. For example adding a d4 per level is better than a static +1 per level. Both are scaling but the d4 is better scaling. D6 is better scaling then d4 so on and so forth.
Since spell slots get bigger with level things that scale with spell slots also scale with level, though to a lesser extent than other at will effects.
So yes chain lightning scales better than fireball. They both scale but growing by a d10 is better than growing by a d6.
That's not the contention. The contention is whether or not "growing" (especially overall growth) and "scaling" are the same thing. They're not. Things can grow without scaling. Things can scale without individual elements growing.
You're continuing to repeat your pedantic argument despite the evidence above that you are wrong. Language is an evolving dynamic system that shifts according to consensus understanding, we have 6:1 votes that "scaling" in D&D is used the way I and Aquilontune defined it, not your definition. Therefore your definition is wrong. Language exists in order to communicate ideas, if you are unable to get across your idea clearly, then you are using it wrong.
But this is an entirely side argument to the main point that your proposal is biased against Ranger & Druid by giving them an objectively worse cantrip than all the others. That's even before we consider that it completely excludes non-casters (Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian) which is again bad for the game by widening the caster-martial divide.
TL:DR Your definition is wrong, and your proposal is bad.
Then do something constructive and good-faith by suggesting a fix. What would you do to fix it? Starting with constructive criticism is a much better path than starting with personal attacks about my game group, and its play style, and distorted lists of grievance (that, by your own definition of the terms, repeats the same item to make the complaint seem more extensive).
As cantrips, they can easily access them if they choose to (especially Rogue and Fighter). It just costs them a Feat (or not even a Feat, for the EK). Further, the existence of the current True Strike cantrip also undermines this statement: my proposals are refinements of that cantrip. Anything they do to the game (overall) is already there, not an issue I have created. Your contention (in this line, which was amazingly absent from your initial criticism) isn't with me, it's with the designers of the game.
The True Strike cantrip exists, with or without my proposal, and it is the crux of your issue in that sentence -- not my proposal.
My use and definition of the word are not wrong, they just aren't yours. And my definition is also the one where the term comes from, and still in use (in other words: not an obsoleted definition). And your own initial complaint, which separated the concept into two different items on your list, actually indicates that you know the term isn't about overall damage. You can't have it both ways: either you knew they were separate things by listing the idea twice, or your list was intentionally distorted and disingenuous by listing (what you think is) the same thing twice.
The "is it growth or is it scaling" debate has to be one of the most pedantic/inconsequential I've read on these boards and that's saying something 🤔
Bottom line is that Shillelagh increasing on two dimensions at once isn't necessary. If they really want it to be more useful for druids and clerics than anyone else just make it a
bladetripclubtrip that requires the Magic action, that way the damage dice can be the primary measure of power. If they'd prefer it to be better for Rangers and Monks, keep the existing design where it uses the Attack action and works with Extra Attack but the dice stay static. And they should have the same thought process for every weapon-based cantrip.Man. It's almost like the community's utter desperation for any form of functional gish is driving them to stupidity because Wizards flat ******* refuses to give people the thing they've wanted since before 5e was a thing - the ability to swing your sword and use magic in the same action and be effective doing it.
Where's our goddamn spellblade, Wizards? These dumb arguments over SCAGtrip-esque spells would all disappear if we had a working bloody spellblade.
Please do not contact or message me.
As a class (like the Paladin and Ranger)? Yeah, a big gap.
As a subclass? The EK, AT, and some (most?) Artificer subclasses fit into that role, as well as some Warlock builds, and two (or three?) Bard subclasses.
I thought they fixed the EK to do this?
Depending how you see it the pally smites are definitely closer to this now as well (slash and banish...).
Bonus action spells on anyone with extra attack is very limited casting and attacking.
Honestly, I would argue there are a decent number of spell blades all with different limits on slash, casting or variety of both. But you aren't getting a spell blade that is as good at casting as a caster or as good as fighting as martials. Action economy is always going to be the main limiter because flexibility is the main benefit.
There's probably also some interesting design space for a class/subclass that can cast and take one bonus action attack. (probably defense/area control rather than attack enhancement)
The problem is in every last single current "Spellblade" subclass, the class's entire game plan is either "cast unless you have no other choice, in which case attack" or "attack unless you have no other choice, in which case spell." Spells and swords remain distinct, separate, and as unmixable as oil and water. even the Bladesinger, the closest they've ever gotten, is "make one attack, and then cast a minor spell, in the same action." The 'flexibility' offered by being a fake spellblade never actually matters because making use of that flexibility is a strictly inferior game plan to just doing what your class is meant to actually be doing. After all, when was the last time you saw a ranger or a paladin actually cast a spell in combat that wasn't Hunter's Mark?
Please do not contact or message me.
EK now can replace one attack with a cantrip, and there are a number of them that are better than just doing a basic attack, new true strike, green flame blade and, booming blade. Also, toll of the dead, and various AOE cantrips would be worthwhile. (BTW ts, gfb, bb are literally an attack and spell at the same time) And EK is looking very strong currently.
the main thing stopping ranger from casting spells is they through concentration on many things, zephyr strike, esnaring strike, lightning arrow, hail of thorns, would be worth casting if it didnt require concentration. Especially since the class theoretically should have hunters mark up at all times, says the level 1 and level 20 features.
All the time, actually. Misty Step is a favourite for getting where they want to be, Spirit Shroud, Zephyr Strike, Wrathful Smite, Thunderous Smite, Faerie Fire, Haste, Ashardalon's Stride, and Summon Beast/Conjure Animals have all made appearances at my table. I've also had a ranger x cleric MC who routinely cast Healing Word.
The problem with implementing your vision of a "spell blade" is that both their weapon attack and their spells need to be halved in power to maintain their power balance when they use both at the same time. This is the current problem with WotC's bandaid solution of "replace one attack with a cantrip", cantrips are balanced to be slightly less powerful than a martial making 2 attacks with their action since cantrips cost a full action, thus replacing only 1 attack with a cantrip grants a big boost in power. There is an easy solution to this: making cantrips scale on your caster level rather than your character level, then you could allow "spell blades" to cast a cantrip and make an attack at the same time.
This strictly untrue. A bladepact warlock is not usually better off burning through their precious few slots rather than casting one big powerful concentration spell and then mixing it up with their blade, or casting a defensive spell and then going blade. A Ranger who only casts hunter's mark in combat is probably using the spells for all kinds of useful things outside of combat, but if they want to maximize effectiveness IN combat. I see them cast spike growth, Zephyr strike, conjure animals, All kinds of things. Paladin's I see cast less but I also don't think their spell list is particularly great, but the new smite options really fix that. Bladesinger wizards do all kinds of crazy things. And EK is looking really good with the attack + cantrip and at higher levels Attack + leveled spell.
If you want a full on 3rd level spell + attack on the same turn at level 5 you aren't going to get that because it would be blatantly unbalanced. Like I said we have MANY ways to do the "blade sword" all of them have DIFFERENT limitations and having one that doesn't have some sort of hard limitation just isn't going to happen because then it would invalidate basically every other class in the game.
I find rangers almost always cast one spell per encounter that changes the field tactics. Which spells work will change with the build and encounter design. Fog cloud can really make a difference if you know your enemy's vision and actions. Sometimes just long strider or asharladons Stride or jump gives a tactical advantage.
Amost every ranger spell has its use and if your relying on HM your probably going to have less fun because it's only sometimes optimal.
Spells like HM and Hex (concentration spells that are always useful, even if you might do better situationally) ought to be avoided in class design. By existing, they reduce spell usage; because they're easy, you cast them round 1, and then don't use anything else because it'll ruin your damage boost. If the class needs an always-on damage boost, then just give it to them as a class feature.
I agree. I find I tend to quit using hex after a few levels.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That is why the no concentration version worked. I think it should have been deployed a bit later like level 5/6 but it works in the design as it does not stop you from casting other spells or dropping a spell that is signature to the class. There are other ways to do it, like just stop making them spells but bonus actions or magic actions. Or some kind of non action for them like object interact, draw weapon style action. with other limits like x times per day, they last 1 hour period.
I would not want to just give them a class future you do 1d6 more damage per attack as a class feature. it should have some limits in how its used, limits define and shape a classes personality as much as their strengths do
One thing I have always found about hex is if I am planning on using it with a warlock then I am also looking at spells that don't need concentration. With Fiends that means I am looking at fireballs and fire shield and the like. For Archfey it means I want to use blink and plant growth for a lot of other warlocks I am looking at dispel magic, counter spell, armor of agathys, the charm sweet of spells. Warlocks, in particular, feel kind of limited by concentration, but being able to concentrate on a spell through a rest does at least extend your casting a bit, even if it also finds ways to limit it at the same time.