Is summoning a hound of ill omen better than being able to drop a cone of cold or fireball on the party and make sure only the enemies get hurt?
I don't want to derail this topic, but this might be pertinent considering you guys are discussing the balance between Wizards and Sorcerer's class features... and this has always annoyed me:
The sorcerer's Careful metamagic feat doesn't state that only enemies get hurt from a fireball spell. It means selected allies automatically succeed on the saving throw... Meaning for a Careful Fireball, those selected allies take half damage (unless of course they have the Evasion class feature). Now it is true for certain spells that have the save for no damage effect, but Fireball and Cone of Cold are not one of those.
It is also important to note that most AoE damage spells on the Sorcerer's list are either "Save for Half Damage" or probably not worth using the Careful Metamagic Feat on (They are all cantrips).
Is summoning a hound of ill omen better than being able to drop a cone of cold or fireball on the party and make sure only the enemies get hurt?
I don't want to derail this topic, but this might be pertinent considering you guys are discussing the balance between Wizards and Sorcerer's class features... and this has always annoyed me:
The sorcerer's Careful metamagic feat doesn't state that only enemies get hurt from a fireball spell. It means selected allies automatically succeed on the saving throw... Meaning for a Careful Fireball, those selected allies take half damage (unless of course they have the Evasion class feature). Now it is true for certain spells that have the save for no damage effect, but Fireball and Cone of Cold are not one of those.
Yeah i know which is dumb when compared to the wizards spell sculpt ability for evocation wizards where they just cut their allies out of the fireball and only hurt the enemies. Its better than the sorcerers careful spell meta magic option where ur carefully blowing up for friends for half damage lol. Thats what i was comparing things too.
Is summoning a hound of ill omen better than being able to drop a cone of cold or fireball on the party and make sure only the enemies get hurt?
I don't want to derail this topic, but this might be pertinent considering you guys are discussing the balance between Wizards and Sorcerer's class features... and this has always annoyed me:
The sorcerer's Careful metamagic feat doesn't state that only enemies get hurt from a fireball spell. It means selected allies automatically succeed on the saving throw... Meaning for a Careful Fireball, those selected allies take half damage (unless of course they have the Evasion class feature). Now it is true for certain spells that have the save for no damage effect, but Fireball and Cone of Cold are not one of those.
Yeah i know which is dumb when compared to the wizards spell sculpt ability for evocation wizards where they just cut their allies out of the fireball and only hurt the enemies. Its better than the sorcerers careful spell meta magic option where ur carefully blowing up for friends for half damage lol. Thats what i was comparing things too.
Agreed, while the Metamagic Feats are very cool, I feel as though if player's and GMs actually properly ruled them people would realize how under powered they are compared to some of the Wizard's Class features.
I believe the intent was that Hound of Ill Omen was being compared to Sculpt Spells, the Evocation School talent. Sculpt Spells does allow for no damage to your allies from heavy area effects. Sculpt Spells is strictly superior to Careful Spell for evocation; Careful Spell's only benefit is that it covers any AoE spell the sorcerer can cast.
Wizards are not hurting right now. The idea that swapping one spell, level-for-level, on the sorcerer, bard or warlock Destroys The Wizard's Identity is ridiculous. Again, Thucy - the level of the spell cannot change. A sorcerer could change its level 2 Invisibility for only another level 2 spell, not whatever it feels like. This is a real limitation for a class that only generally knows a dozen spells or less. Usually a sorcerer has to simply acknowledge that it's only going to be good at one or two things and assemble a spell list that's adequate for those one or two things, while a wizard with its 50+ spells can be good at whatever the hell it feels like being good at that day.
This stuff does not break the game. It just makes certain classes a bit less painful to play.
I also very much like that these rules will remain optional and not be a revision to the PHB.
My bard is currently level 8 and has 11 spells known + 3 cantrips. To change out all my spells will take more than a tenday, and I only can swap out level for level spells.
To be fair, in our campaign there are only two full casters, a druid and my bard. There is no infringing on a wizard, and I don't believe there would be any infringement on a wizard, if we had one.
We recently ran into a problem with an informant. He died (might have been our fault, too) before we had a chance to talk to him.
Now, speak with dead is on the bard spell list, but I didn't learn the spell. It was just too niche for me to bother with it.
We ended up dragging his corpse out of the underdark into a temple, paid a lot of money to the priest to cast the spell, and when the priest heard the answers and knew that we had a certain (contraband) item in our possession, we had to escape the temple grounds.
This took a lot longer than 1 long rest, and could have been completely avoided.
Did we have fun? Heck, yes!
Would we have gathered the information faster using the UA? Heck, yes!
Would that have hurt any other character class? Er, no.
If you consider that the sorcerer, bard, and ranger lists are curated and trimmed, while the wizard has access to learning almost all spells, I don't think that switching out 1 spell per long rest is jeopardizing the wizard's unique-ness.
If you have a lot of downtime in your campaign, and think that it would be unfair that Spell Versatility gives you access to the full spell list, consider that the wizard can pick his preferred spells when he's leveling up, creating his own curated list, and that downtime gives the wizard the opportunity to find and transcribe spell scrolls, too.
And if you still believe that the wizard in your campaign is being short changed, don't unlock the feature in your campaign.
In my opinion, having this option available, making it a 'sanctioned' variant, is creating more benefits than drawbacks.
As we're playing a collaborative game, having more options for my fellow players does not feel threatening to me.
I'd suggest that the fact that we're having an argument over whether sorcerers, wizards or any other class is not given enough love and are weak compared to x-other class - and that giving y-class another option is a nerf to x-class - means they're more or less balanced, within the context of the game and the way each table plays. Someone else getting ice cream doesn't mean you're losing your apple pie.
I'd suggest that the fact that we're having an argument over whether sorcerers, wizards or any other class is not given enough love and are weak compared to x-other class - and that giving y-class another option is a nerf to x-class - means they're more or less balanced, within the context of the game and the way each table plays. Someone else getting ice cream doesn't mean you're losing your apple pie.
But everyone knows Ice Cream and Apple Pie is better than Ice Cream or Apple Pie...
(On a more serious note with these changes I more or less agree they are balanced)
The funny thing about the 'wizards vs spell versatility' thing is the idea that
A) you have a party with Both Wizards AND Bards/Sorcerers
B) They aren't already working together in regards to spell choices.
C) The Wizard isn't going to feel relieved at not having to waste level-up spell choices on super niche spells just in case they don't find a scroll of said spell before the need for the spell comes up. "Bard, can you grab that Ritual spell till I get it scribed down please?" "Oh sure, not a problem." "thanks".
Honestly, the best reason I can think of to deny that variant rule is to avoid players doing this to collaboratively power creep! LOL
Also, if any DM didnt read the Warlock spell versatility and didn't start imagining what your patron was going to make your warlock do for the new knowledge then you are wasting a golden opportunity.
I'd suggest that the fact that we're having an argument over whether sorcerers, wizards or any other class is not given enough love and are weak compared to x-other class - and that giving y-class another option is a nerf to x-class - means they're more or less balanced, within the context of the game and the way each table plays. Someone else getting ice cream doesn't mean you're losing your apple pie.
But everyone knows Ice Cream and Apple Pie is better than Ice Cream or Apple Pie...
(On a more serious note with these changes I more or less agree they are balanced)
Only if it's Vanilla Ice Cream with Apple Pie. Anything else is sacrilege...
So Jeremy Crawford has mentioned that even though unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, they do no count as a weapon in the strictest sense. They’re not objects and there are some less permissive DMs that see this distinction as a reason to restrict things like smite to weapon objects. The verbiage of many smites mention holding a weapon specifically. I’d like some official (or semi official) documentation to back me up when I plead for punch smites.
Basically 5E has four types of attacks: Melee Weapon, Melee Spell, Ranged Weapon, and Ranged Spell. Unarmed strikes fall under the first. Divine Smite is keyed off of melee weapon attacks, but do not specifically call for them to be 'attacks made with a weapon' (very fine line, but there it is) unlike Rogue Sneak Attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Basically 5E has four types of attacks: Melee Weapon, Melee Spell, Ranged Weapon, and Ranged Spell. Unarmed strikes fall under the first. Divine Smite is keyed off of melee weapon attacks, but do not specifically call for them to be 'attacks made with a weapon' (very fine line, but there it is) unlike Rogue Sneak Attack.
Where there you go again. I want to be able to do unarmed sneak attacks as well. Judo chops and neck snaps all day. If I’m investing in this style I want the option other fighters get with a short sword. I shouldn’t be hindered because my DM played less Metal Gear Solid than me.
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons? Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack. The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
Can a rogue/monk use Sneak Attack with unarmed strikes? The Sneak Attack feature works with a weapon that has the finesse or ranged property. An unarmed strike isn’t a weapon, so it doesn’t qualify.
What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon? It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon. Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.
So since Divine Smite says it requires a "melee weapon attack" and not an attack with a melee weapon, it can indeed be used with unarmed strikes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Basically 5E has four types of attacks: Melee Weapon, Melee Spell, Ranged Weapon, and Ranged Spell. Unarmed strikes fall under the first. Divine Smite is keyed off of melee weapon attacks, but do not specifically call for them to be 'attacks made with a weapon' (very fine line, but there it is) unlike Rogue Sneak Attack.
Where there you go again. I want to be able to do unarmed sneak attacks as well. Judo chops and neck snaps all day. If I’m investing in this style I want the option other fighters get with a short sword. I shouldn’t be hindered because my DM played less Metal Gear Solid than me.
Nope, that doesn't work. Sneak Attacks require a finesse or ranged weapon. Hands are not weapons so they don't count.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes, but other things don't, like Warlocks pact of the blade, spells like [Tooltip Not Found], the Dueling fighting style, two weapon fighting in general, etc etc. He understands what he's saying, Ophid: Ruiner wants a way to turn "unarmed attacks" into real "weapons".
Basically 5E has four types of attacks: Melee Weapon, Melee Spell, Ranged Weapon, and Ranged Spell. Unarmed strikes fall under the first. Divine Smite is keyed off of melee weapon attacks, but do not specifically call for them to be 'attacks made with a weapon' (very fine line, but there it is) unlike Rogue Sneak Attack.
Where there you go again. I want to be able to do unarmed sneak attacks as well. Judo chops and neck snaps all day. If I’m investing in this style I want the option other fighters get with a short sword. I shouldn’t be hindered because my DM played less Metal Gear Solid than me.
Nope, that doesn't work. Sneak Attacks require a finesse or ranged weapon. Hands are not weapons so they don't count.
Right. So I’m saying unarmed style should allow it. Because it’s fun and breaks nothing. If you don’t agree that fine. But again. Fun. Breaks nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't want to derail this topic, but this might be pertinent considering you guys are discussing the balance between Wizards and Sorcerer's class features... and this has always annoyed me:
The sorcerer's Careful metamagic feat doesn't state that only enemies get hurt from a fireball spell. It means selected allies automatically succeed on the saving throw... Meaning for a Careful Fireball, those selected allies take half damage (unless of course they have the Evasion class feature). Now it is true for certain spells that have the save for no damage effect, but Fireball and Cone of Cold are not one of those.
It is also important to note that most AoE damage spells on the Sorcerer's list are either "Save for Half Damage" or probably not worth using the Careful Metamagic Feat on (They are all cantrips).
Yeah i know which is dumb when compared to the wizards spell sculpt ability for evocation wizards where they just cut their allies out of the fireball and only hurt the enemies. Its better than the sorcerers careful spell meta magic option where ur carefully blowing up for friends for half damage lol. Thats what i was comparing things too.
Agreed, while the Metamagic Feats are very cool, I feel as though if player's and GMs actually properly ruled them people would realize how under powered they are compared to some of the Wizard's Class features.
I believe the intent was that Hound of Ill Omen was being compared to Sculpt Spells, the Evocation School talent. Sculpt Spells does allow for no damage to your allies from heavy area effects. Sculpt Spells is strictly superior to Careful Spell for evocation; Careful Spell's only benefit is that it covers any AoE spell the sorcerer can cast.
Wizards are not hurting right now. The idea that swapping one spell, level-for-level, on the sorcerer, bard or warlock Destroys The Wizard's Identity is ridiculous. Again, Thucy - the level of the spell cannot change. A sorcerer could change its level 2 Invisibility for only another level 2 spell, not whatever it feels like. This is a real limitation for a class that only generally knows a dozen spells or less. Usually a sorcerer has to simply acknowledge that it's only going to be good at one or two things and assemble a spell list that's adequate for those one or two things, while a wizard with its 50+ spells can be good at whatever the hell it feels like being good at that day.
This stuff does not break the game. It just makes certain classes a bit less painful to play.
Please do not contact or message me.
I love Spell Versatility!
I also very much like that these rules will remain optional and not be a revision to the PHB.
My bard is currently level 8 and has 11 spells known + 3 cantrips. To change out all my spells will take more than a tenday, and I only can swap out level for level spells.
To be fair, in our campaign there are only two full casters, a druid and my bard. There is no infringing on a wizard, and I don't believe there would be any infringement on a wizard, if we had one.
We recently ran into a problem with an informant. He died (might have been our fault, too) before we had a chance to talk to him.
Now, speak with dead is on the bard spell list, but I didn't learn the spell. It was just too niche for me to bother with it.
We ended up dragging his corpse out of the underdark into a temple, paid a lot of money to the priest to cast the spell, and when the priest heard the answers and knew that we had a certain (contraband) item in our possession, we had to escape the temple grounds.
This took a lot longer than 1 long rest, and could have been completely avoided.
Did we have fun? Heck, yes!
Would we have gathered the information faster using the UA? Heck, yes!
Would that have hurt any other character class? Er, no.
If you consider that the sorcerer, bard, and ranger lists are curated and trimmed, while the wizard has access to learning almost all spells, I don't think that switching out 1 spell per long rest is jeopardizing the wizard's unique-ness.
If you have a lot of downtime in your campaign, and think that it would be unfair that Spell Versatility gives you access to the full spell list, consider that the wizard can pick his preferred spells when he's leveling up, creating his own curated list, and that downtime gives the wizard the opportunity to find and transcribe spell scrolls, too.
And if you still believe that the wizard in your campaign is being short changed, don't unlock the feature in your campaign.
In my opinion, having this option available, making it a 'sanctioned' variant, is creating more benefits than drawbacks.
As we're playing a collaborative game, having more options for my fellow players does not feel threatening to me.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I'd suggest that the fact that we're having an argument over whether sorcerers, wizards or any other class is not given enough love and are weak compared to x-other class - and that giving y-class another option is a nerf to x-class - means they're more or less balanced, within the context of the game and the way each table plays. Someone else getting ice cream doesn't mean you're losing your apple pie.
But everyone knows Ice Cream and Apple Pie is better than Ice Cream or Apple Pie...
(On a more serious note with these changes I more or less agree they are balanced)
The funny thing about the 'wizards vs spell versatility' thing is the idea that
A) you have a party with Both Wizards AND Bards/Sorcerers
B) They aren't already working together in regards to spell choices.
C) The Wizard isn't going to feel relieved at not having to waste level-up spell choices on super niche spells just in case they don't find a scroll of said spell before the need for the spell comes up. "Bard, can you grab that Ritual spell till I get it scribed down please?" "Oh sure, not a problem." "thanks".
Honestly, the best reason I can think of to deny that variant rule is to avoid players doing this to collaboratively power creep! LOL
Also, if any DM didnt read the Warlock spell versatility and didn't start imagining what your patron was going to make your warlock do for the new knowledge then you are wasting a golden opportunity.
Only if it's Vanilla Ice Cream with Apple Pie. Anything else is sacrilege...
Then I will gladly be burned at the stake for my heresy of Cinnamon Ice Cream with my Apple Pie.
I think they are fine, makes your character have more identity.
I’d like to see the Unarmed fighting style have your unarmed strikes count as weapons. I’d like to be able to smite with my fists.
You'll be glad to learn that this is already the case.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/06/what-specifically-does-melee-weapon-attack-mean/
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So Jeremy Crawford has mentioned that even though unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, they do no count as a weapon in the strictest sense. They’re not objects and there are some less permissive DMs that see this distinction as a reason to restrict things like smite to weapon objects. The verbiage of many smites mention holding a weapon specifically. I’d like some official (or semi official) documentation to back me up when I plead for punch smites.
Basically 5E has four types of attacks: Melee Weapon, Melee Spell, Ranged Weapon, and Ranged Spell. Unarmed strikes fall under the first. Divine Smite is keyed off of melee weapon attacks, but do not specifically call for them to be 'attacks made with a weapon' (very fine line, but there it is) unlike Rogue Sneak Attack.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Where there you go again. I want to be able to do unarmed sneak attacks as well. Judo chops and neck snaps all day. If I’m investing in this style I want the option other fighters get with a short sword. I shouldn’t be hindered because my DM played less Metal Gear Solid than me.
So since Divine Smite says it requires a "melee weapon attack" and not an attack with a melee weapon, it can indeed be used with unarmed strikes.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Nope, that doesn't work. Sneak Attacks require a finesse or ranged weapon. Hands are not weapons so they don't count.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes, but other things don't, like Warlocks pact of the blade, spells like [Tooltip Not Found], the Dueling fighting style, two weapon fighting in general, etc etc. He understands what he's saying, Ophid: Ruiner wants a way to turn "unarmed attacks" into real "weapons".
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Right. So I’m saying unarmed style should allow it. Because it’s fun and breaks nothing. If you don’t agree that fine. But again. Fun. Breaks nothing.