I'm . . . torn about the Sorcerer. I love the idea of someone that's born with their magic, and I also love the idea of a Warlock, someone that makes a deal with an otherworldly entity to get their magic, but I currently think there's a bit too much overlap between the two. They both are basically full casters, cast from Charisma, and have very similar subclasses (Celestial Warlock and Divine Soul Sorcerer, Undead Warlock and Shadow Sorcerer, etc). There's also a lot of overlap between Planetouched and Sorcerers (from one point of view, wouldn't it make sense for all Genasi, Aasimar, Hexblood, and Tieflings to automatically be Sorcerers?). In my opinion, a Sorcerer's subclass should be based on what source of magic they have (like it currently is), with higher level subclass features making them more and more like whatever creature/magical entity caused them to get magic (Dragons for Draconic Bloodline Sorcerers, Shadows for Shadow Sorcerers, Celestials for Divine Soul Sorcerers, etc).
But there's also a ton of Warlock subclasses that do basically the same thing, making the Warlock become more and more like their patron as they grow in levels. Genie Warlocks basically become mini-genies, which is something that I would have assumed would be more like a Sorcerer Genie Subclass. Undead Warlocks get more and more undead-like as they grow in powers, which, again, is fairly similar to what most Sorcerer subclasses could/should do. Great Old One Warlocks become more and more alien (like pseudo-Mind Flayers/Aboleths), which makes sense thematically, but again has a lot of overlap with Sorcerers.
Maybe it would be better if the "Warlock" class held both the theme of "I was born with powers/changed by magic to have spellcasting", as well as "my powers were granted by an outsider", and the Sorcerer was more like the Arcane Gish class that it was during the D&D Next Playtest? Possibly making them Constitution-based spellcasters, too? That would make them more mechanically and thematically distinct.
That bolded part would make me want to riot in the streets. Leave my Tieflings alone.
Am I wrong, though? What's the difference between someone that has magical powers from an ancestral bloodline that fundamentally change major parts about their nature . . . and someone that has an ancestral bloodline that fundamentally changes their nature and gives them innate spellcasting.
I can't be the only one that sees some redundancy there. I love Tieflings, Genasi, Hexblood, and Aasimar, I just think they have a lot of overlap thematically and mechanically with Sorcerers. Maybe Sorcerers just shouldn't be a thing as they're presented in 5e, and Warlocks fill the role of "magically-altered humans with spellcasting".
Having your bloodline give you the potential of being a sorcerer is not the same as acting on said potential. After all, all of those races have innate magic built in as racial traits. Sure, they could decide to focus on that natural magic, but they should not be forced to do so.
Edit: I have always hated any kind of Class restrictions based on Race and I would not like to see that ever repeated in D&D.
If your table uses Flanking as written in the DMG, you should stop. It's a poorly written and extremely unbalanced rule. No one should ever use it.
Ah yes, the ever popular "your fun is wrong". I think I will do as I please. Thanks though.
Not the same thing. For an metaphor, say you're playing a video game, and want to do a quest that will literally break your game if you do it. Is it "badwrongfun" for members of the community that play that video game to tell people to not use that quest?
No, it's not. It's just advice on how to not break your game due to a mechanical quirk in the game design that can ruin it.
Flanking is like that. It's a broken mechanic that never should have gotten printed, even as the optional rule that it is. Having optional rules in the core rulebooks are absolutely fine, I've used quite a few of them in my time as a DM, but there is this appearance of "it's in the core rulebooks! Who cares if it's an optional or variant rule, they wouldn't have printed it if it would break my game, right?!", that is pretty accurate for most optional/variant rules printed in the DMG, but not for flanking.
It was poorly thought out and designed, and never should have been printed the way that it's written in the DMG.
Comparing "this mechanic is way to strong and will probably ruin your games" to "no one ever should be allowed to play a good Goblin/Orc/Gnoll" is disingenuous. You can use it as written, but you shouldn't. No one should. It's a terrible mechanic, and should feel bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If your table uses Flanking as written in the DMG, you should stop. It's a poorly written and extremely unbalanced rule. No one should ever use it.
Ah yes, the ever popular "your fun is wrong". I think I will do as I please. Thanks though.
Not the same thing. For an metaphor, say you're playing a video game, and want to do a quest that will literally break your game if you do it. Is it "badwrongfun" for members of the community that play that video game to tell people to not use that quest?
No, it's not. It's just advice on how to not break your game due to a mechanical quirk in the game design that can ruin it.
Flanking is like that. It's a broken mechanic that never should have gotten printed, even as the optional rule that it is. Having optional rules in the core rulebooks are absolutely fine, I've used quite a few of them in my time as a DM, but there is this appearance of "it's in the core rulebooks! Who cares if it's an optional or variant rule, they wouldn't have printed it if it would break my game, right?!", that is pretty accurate for most optional/variant rules printed in the DMG, but not for flanking.
It was poorly thought out and designed, and never should have been printed the way that it's written in the DMG.
Comparing "this mechanic is way to strong and will probably ruin your games" to "no one ever should be allowed to play a good Goblin/Orc/Gnoll" is disingenuous. You can use it as written, but you shouldn't. No one should. It's a terrible mechanic, and should feel bad.
In your opinion. That is the important part of this that you are forgetting. It is your opinion. Your opinion does not dictate my game or anyone else's. Period.
Having your bloodline give you the potential of being a sorcerer is not the same as acting on said potential. After all, all of those races have innate magic built in as racial traits. Sure, they could decide to focus on that natural magic, but they should not be forced to do so.
Edit: I have always hated any kind of Class restrictions based on Race and I would not like to see that ever repeated in D&D.
I don't see any meaningful difference between "I have magic because of my bloodline" and "I have magic because of my bloodline, but it lets me cast up to 9th level spells if I get that high level". Those are not thematically distinct. I'm fine with the idea of a character that has been magically altered to the extent that they're basically a living font of magic, I just don't think that having such similar origins for a whole group of player races in 5e and one of the base classes is good design. It's redundant.
And I'm also not advocating for class restrictions based on race. Where did you get that idea? I'd be perfectly fine with having Aasimar, Genasi, Hexblood, and Tieflings function as they currently do. I just think that the theme of the Sorcerer that causes this overlap is the thing that should get changed in future iterations of D&D. There's a ton of overlap, and IMO, it would be best if the Sorcerer was rolled into the idea of the Warlock class, or something like that. (It is a standard fantasy trope to have "witches" be born with their power, and "witch" is the female term for "warlock".)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
And I'm also not advocating for class restrictions based on race. Where did you get that idea?
"wouldn't it make sense for all Genasi, Aasimar, Hexblood, and Tieflings toautomatically be Sorcerers?"
This is a restriction based purely on race.
I meant conceptually. I'm not actually advocating for them automatically being Sorcerers, I was trying to get across that they're basically identical thematically and story-wise.
I don't want that. I'm pretty certain that no one (or at least the vast majority of people) don't want that. That's kind of why I wrote that, as a "it's bad that they're so close thematically" sort of way of speech.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In your opinion. That is the important part of this that you are forgetting. It is your opinion. Your opinion does not dictate my game or anyone else's. Period.
Rules as Written. It is broken if you're otherwise playing the game Rules as Written. Unless you have extensive homebrew rules or put so many enemies into combat that the only way your PCs can possibly survive a fight is by constantly using Flanking, Flanking, as written as an optional rule, is 100% broken. The variant version of Aberrant Dragonmark is in the same situation, where it will very possibly break your game in objective ways if you use it as written (this is the version of the feat that can give an Epic Boon to a level 10 character). There's a few other examples in base 5e as well.
There are options in 5e that will break the game. Objectively. If you play the game RAW and use the standard recommended rules for encounters-per-day, Flanking, Variant Aberrant Dragonmark, and similar examples will objectively break your game. It's not an opinion, in these circumstances, it's fact. Advantage on every attack as long as your buddy is on the opposite side of the monster you're attacking is objectively broken in these circumstances, just like having an Epic Boon at level 10 is objectively broken with the Variant Aberrant Dragonmark.
"I use a broken rule" is not comparable to "you're suppressing my fun".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In your opinion. That is the important part of this that you are forgetting. It is your opinion. Your opinion does not dictate my game or anyone else's. Period.
Rules as Written. It is broken if you're otherwise playing the game Rules as Written. Unless you have extensive homebrew rules or put so many enemies into combat that the only way your PCs can possibly survive a fight is by constantly using Flanking, Flanking, as written as an optional rule, is 100% broken. The variant version of Aberrant Dragonmark is in the same situation, where it will very possibly break your game in objective ways if you use it as written (this is the version of the feat that can give an Epic Boon to a level 10 character). There's a few other examples in base 5e as well.
There are options in 5e that will break the game. Objectively. If you play the game RAW and use the standard recommended rules for encounters-per-day, Flanking, Variant Aberrant Dragonmark, and similar examples will objectively break your game. It's not an opinion, in these circumstances, it's fact. Advantage on every attack as long as your buddy is on the opposite side of the monster you're attacking is objectively broken in these circumstances, just like having an Epic Boon at level 10 is objectively broken with the Variant Aberrant Dragonmark.
"I use a broken rule" is not comparable to "you're suppressing my fun".
I have been DMing for 35 years. I have been DMing 5e for about 7ish years. Flanking has not broken my game yet. No matter how much you stomp your feet, you still only voicing your opinion on the rule. You telling anyone how they should play the game IS attempting to suppress their fun. You have no right to tell anyone how to play D&D or tell them which rules they may or may not use.
How do you feel when people say "don't play a Purple Dragon Knight/Undying Warlock, it's super underpowered and broken"? Do you think that's "badwrongfun"?
If not, how in the hell is that at all different from "this mechanic is broken and overpowered, no one should use it"? If you do have the same opinion . . . how the **** is it "badwrongfun" to try and warn people that a mechanic might make their game less fun for them.
Keep using Flanking all you like. You're an experienced DM. If you have made the proper counter-balances to keep nigh-constant advantage on weapon attacks from breaking your game, good for you. I still do not think that it should have been in the core rulebooks at all, because of how it can break new players' games, thinking that WotC would have designed a balanced feature.
It broke my games when I started. I used it, thinking that it would be fine, but it wasn't. It should not be an option in the DMG, just like the Purple Dragon Knight, Undying Warlock, and similar broken subclasses should not have been published in their broken form.
Mechanics are objective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I have no problem with flanking either. If it works for the party it works against them too. A pack of KoboldHyena riders or a flock of KoboldVulture riders can be abso-freakin’-lately terrifying. 😉
How do you feel when people say "don't play a Purple Dragon Knight/Undying Warlock, it's super underpowered and broken"? Do you think that's "badwrongfun"?
If not, how in the hell is that at all different from "this mechanic is broken and overpowered, no one should use it"? If you do have the same opinion . . . how the **** is it "badwrongfun" to try and warn people that a mechanic might make their game less fun for them.
Keep using Flanking all you like. You're an experienced DM. If you have made the proper counter-balances to keep nigh-constant advantage on weapon attacks from breaking your game, good for you. I still do not think that it should have been in the core rulebooks at all, because of how it can break new players' games, thinking that WotC would have designed a balanced feature.
It broke my games when I started. I used it, thinking that it would be fine, but it wasn't. It should not be an option in the DMG, just like the Purple Dragon Knight, Undying Warlock, and similar broken subclasses should not have been published in their broken form.
Mechanics are objective.
There is a difference between, "I don't like X rule. I think it is overpowered." and "X rule is broken and will ruin your game don't use it."
One is stating an opinion but doesn't carry any self appointed authority, the other does.
Edit: I would tell someone that I don't like the Purple Dragon Knight, but I would never tell some one not to play it if they want to to. That is not my place nor is it yours.
So we want to see tactical movement options like flanking in a future UA? I'm sorry, maybe I was blinded by the lack of DRAGONRAGE in UA, but I didn't see how the bickering was on topic.
I wouldn't mind seeing actually some "tactical movement" or "tactical options" that may do things like revisit grappling, shoving and strength contests, as well as flanking, high ground and other things.
I don't see flanking as broken, it's very impactful on the tide of a battle, and if a game implemented it would definitely be a big factor in tactical consideration that most tables tend to ignore, but I don't think that makes it broken. The 3rd Party Spelunkers Guide to the Underdark has this whole chapter on "momentum" which definitely makes combat more dynamic than traditional swing and hit combat in 5e. It's not for everyone, but it's incorporation into a game doesn't break it, it just asserts a different tactical mindset (and brings alive features that are sorta inert or neat on paper meh in practice like the Scout Rogue's skirmisher ability.
So, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing, rather than yet another miscelania of loosely associated players options,.some mechanical options for folks wanting to stir up their combat stew. Exploration mechanics would be of interest as well (though I've yet to check out the Wilderness Screens content).
So we want to see tactical movement options like flanking in a future UA? I'm sorry, maybe I was blinded by the lack of DRAGONRAGE in UA, but I didn't see how the bickering was on topic.
I wouldn't mind seeing actually some "tactical movement" or "tactical options" that may do things like revisit grappling, shoving and strength contests, as well as flanking, high ground and other things.
I don't see flanking as broken, it's very impactful on the tide of a battle, and if a game implemented it would definitely be a big factor in tactical consideration that most tables tend to ignore, but I don't think that makes it broken. The 3rd Party Spelunkers Guide to the Underdark has this whole chapter on "momentum" which definitely makes combat more dynamic than traditional swing and hit combat in 5e. It's not for everyone, but it's incorporation into a game doesn't break it, it just asserts a different tactical mindset (and brings alive features that are sorta inert or neat on paper meh in practice like the Scout Rogue's skirmisher ability.
So, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing, rather than yet another miscelania of loosely associated players options,.some mechanical options for folks wanting to stir up their combat stew. Exploration mechanics would be of interest as well (though I've yet to check out the Wilderness Screens content).
If flanking was a feat it wouldn't be a problem, now it negates the advantage of low level enemies with pack tactics. If it was a feat it would at least cost you something to have it.
It gives everyone Pack Tactics and makes everyone a Rogue, which essentially devalues both those things. My concern is less that it's overpowered (it is, but not really a lot) so much as that it steps on toes and makes existing choices less impactful.
It gives everyone Pack Tactics and makes everyone a Rogue, which essentially devalues both those things. My concern is less that it's overpowered (it is, but not really a lot) so much as that it steps on toes and makes existing choices less impactful.
One way to incorporate it but not make it overtly crazy is instead of ADV its a +2 to hit....kind of like reverse cover.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yep. It's so broken.
If your table uses Flanking as written in the DMG, you should stop. It's a poorly written and extremely unbalanced rule. No one should ever use it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Third,
They may have the potential to be Sorcerers, but that doesn’t mean it’s awakened for them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Having your bloodline give you the potential of being a sorcerer is not the same as acting on said potential. After all, all of those races have innate magic built in as racial traits. Sure, they could decide to focus on that natural magic, but they should not be forced to do so.
Edit: I have always hated any kind of Class restrictions based on Race and I would not like to see that ever repeated in D&D.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ah yes, the ever popular "your fun is wrong". I think I will do as I please. Thanks though.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Not the same thing. For an metaphor, say you're playing a video game, and want to do a quest that will literally break your game if you do it. Is it "badwrongfun" for members of the community that play that video game to tell people to not use that quest?
No, it's not. It's just advice on how to not break your game due to a mechanical quirk in the game design that can ruin it.
Flanking is like that. It's a broken mechanic that never should have gotten printed, even as the optional rule that it is. Having optional rules in the core rulebooks are absolutely fine, I've used quite a few of them in my time as a DM, but there is this appearance of "it's in the core rulebooks! Who cares if it's an optional or variant rule, they wouldn't have printed it if it would break my game, right?!", that is pretty accurate for most optional/variant rules printed in the DMG, but not for flanking.
It was poorly thought out and designed, and never should have been printed the way that it's written in the DMG.
Comparing "this mechanic is way to strong and will probably ruin your games" to "no one ever should be allowed to play a good Goblin/Orc/Gnoll" is disingenuous. You can use it as written, but you shouldn't. No one should. It's a terrible mechanic, and should feel bad.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In your opinion. That is the important part of this that you are forgetting. It is your opinion. Your opinion does not dictate my game or anyone else's. Period.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't see any meaningful difference between "I have magic because of my bloodline" and "I have magic because of my bloodline, but it lets me cast up to 9th level spells if I get that high level". Those are not thematically distinct. I'm fine with the idea of a character that has been magically altered to the extent that they're basically a living font of magic, I just don't think that having such similar origins for a whole group of player races in 5e and one of the base classes is good design. It's redundant.
And I'm also not advocating for class restrictions based on race. Where did you get that idea? I'd be perfectly fine with having Aasimar, Genasi, Hexblood, and Tieflings function as they currently do. I just think that the theme of the Sorcerer that causes this overlap is the thing that should get changed in future iterations of D&D. There's a ton of overlap, and IMO, it would be best if the Sorcerer was rolled into the idea of the Warlock class, or something like that. (It is a standard fantasy trope to have "witches" be born with their power, and "witch" is the female term for "warlock".)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"wouldn't it make sense for all Genasi, Aasimar, Hexblood, and Tieflings to automatically be Sorcerers?"
This is a restriction based purely on race.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I meant conceptually. I'm not actually advocating for them automatically being Sorcerers, I was trying to get across that they're basically identical thematically and story-wise.
I don't want that. I'm pretty certain that no one (or at least the vast majority of people) don't want that. That's kind of why I wrote that, as a "it's bad that they're so close thematically" sort of way of speech.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Rules as Written. It is broken if you're otherwise playing the game Rules as Written. Unless you have extensive homebrew rules or put so many enemies into combat that the only way your PCs can possibly survive a fight is by constantly using Flanking, Flanking, as written as an optional rule, is 100% broken. The variant version of Aberrant Dragonmark is in the same situation, where it will very possibly break your game in objective ways if you use it as written (this is the version of the feat that can give an Epic Boon to a level 10 character). There's a few other examples in base 5e as well.
There are options in 5e that will break the game. Objectively. If you play the game RAW and use the standard recommended rules for encounters-per-day, Flanking, Variant Aberrant Dragonmark, and similar examples will objectively break your game. It's not an opinion, in these circumstances, it's fact. Advantage on every attack as long as your buddy is on the opposite side of the monster you're attacking is objectively broken in these circumstances, just like having an Epic Boon at level 10 is objectively broken with the Variant Aberrant Dragonmark.
"I use a broken rule" is not comparable to "you're suppressing my fun".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I have been DMing for 35 years. I have been DMing 5e for about 7ish years. Flanking has not broken my game yet. No matter how much you stomp your feet, you still only voicing your opinion on the rule. You telling anyone how they should play the game IS attempting to suppress their fun. You have no right to tell anyone how to play D&D or tell them which rules they may or may not use.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
How do you feel when people say "don't play a Purple Dragon Knight/Undying Warlock, it's super underpowered and broken"? Do you think that's "badwrongfun"?
If not, how in the hell is that at all different from "this mechanic is broken and overpowered, no one should use it"? If you do have the same opinion . . . how the **** is it "badwrongfun" to try and warn people that a mechanic might make their game less fun for them.
Keep using Flanking all you like. You're an experienced DM. If you have made the proper counter-balances to keep nigh-constant advantage on weapon attacks from breaking your game, good for you. I still do not think that it should have been in the core rulebooks at all, because of how it can break new players' games, thinking that WotC would have designed a balanced feature.
It broke my games when I started. I used it, thinking that it would be fine, but it wasn't. It should not be an option in the DMG, just like the Purple Dragon Knight, Undying Warlock, and similar broken subclasses should not have been published in their broken form.
Mechanics are objective.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I have no problem with flanking either. If it works for the party it works against them too. A pack of Kobold Hyena riders or a flock of Kobold Vulture riders can be abso-freakin’-lately terrifying. 😉
🤣😂🤣
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is a difference between, "I don't like X rule. I think it is overpowered." and "X rule is broken and will ruin your game don't use it."
One is stating an opinion but doesn't carry any self appointed authority, the other does.
Edit: I would tell someone that I don't like the Purple Dragon Knight, but I would never tell some one not to play it if they want to to. That is not my place nor is it yours.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Unless you’re the DM and that’s your houserule. I ban both the Sorcerer and Barbarian Wild Magic 💩 subclasses.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That is fair, but also a table rule, not telling a stranger on the internet that they are breaking their own game by using rules that they like.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So we want to see tactical movement options like flanking in a future UA? I'm sorry, maybe I was blinded by the lack of DRAGONRAGE in UA, but I didn't see how the bickering was on topic.
I wouldn't mind seeing actually some "tactical movement" or "tactical options" that may do things like revisit grappling, shoving and strength contests, as well as flanking, high ground and other things.
I don't see flanking as broken, it's very impactful on the tide of a battle, and if a game implemented it would definitely be a big factor in tactical consideration that most tables tend to ignore, but I don't think that makes it broken. The 3rd Party Spelunkers Guide to the Underdark has this whole chapter on "momentum" which definitely makes combat more dynamic than traditional swing and hit combat in 5e. It's not for everyone, but it's incorporation into a game doesn't break it, it just asserts a different tactical mindset (and brings alive features that are sorta inert or neat on paper meh in practice like the Scout Rogue's skirmisher ability.
So, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing, rather than yet another miscelania of loosely associated players options,.some mechanical options for folks wanting to stir up their combat stew. Exploration mechanics would be of interest as well (though I've yet to check out the Wilderness Screens content).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If flanking was a feat it wouldn't be a problem, now it negates the advantage of low level enemies with pack tactics. If it was a feat it would at least cost you something to have it.
It gives everyone Pack Tactics and makes everyone a Rogue, which essentially devalues both those things. My concern is less that it's overpowered (it is, but not really a lot) so much as that it steps on toes and makes existing choices less impactful.
One way to incorporate it but not make it overtly crazy is instead of ADV its a +2 to hit....kind of like reverse cover.