Quote from Estaln>>As an (ex) fencer we called the motion of blade against blade as you jostle for openings, change lines, guard and parry the "conversation of blades".
Thanks for this, this is an excellent way to explain in roleplaying terms how an enemy might tell the difference without actually doing a check or attack roll. As it’s assumed that creatures don’t stay absolutely still between turns, it’s fair to assume that two creatures in melee with one another would do some feints or scouting strikes while looking for an opening (that opening being the attack they actually take during their turn). In doing so, it would become immediately obvious which were real. But scouting for an opening with the illusion would be the exact thing that gives the real Cleric advantage on their attack.
A pebble was my first example and is what I would tell a player trying to do something like this. Other things are only required if I humor the player arguing that it wouldn't work.
The reason I asserted a flask of water would automatically work is that you could cover a large enough area that the cleric would pretty much guaranteed be hit by the water. (or not hit if it is the illusion) A bag of flour would really work better, but most intelligent enemies are likely to carry some water and would be frustrated by these tactics. Many would come up with some kind of solution resembling this.
It's a good point that the pcs could also use this, but most enemies that use illusions specifically give rules for what they do. (eg: displacer beast) If it's out of combat, this is a valid strategy I would allow at the risk of angering someone when throwing a rock at them.
Also, it depends on the situation, but I would definitely consider the cleric's tactics to be exploiting the rules.
While the ability definitely could be exploitable by a bad-faith or excessively creative player, I think super basic, non-edge case situations still raise a lot of question marks.
Trickster Cleric is definitely intended to be sneaky; in fact, I'd be shocked to see one at my table that didn't take a level 1 dip into Rogue. As such, what do Rogues love to do a lot? Sneak right up behind someone and stab them in the back, right? So I sneak up behind an unaware enemy, Invoke Duplicity so there's two of me behind them, and then Sneak Attack them. We enter initiative and they turn to see two of me. Explain to me how it's exploiting the rules to assume this guy has no idea which illusion to attack first?
I'm not inventing some wild hyper-specific armchair scenario here. I'm describing the basic way a character like this is intended to function, and the RAW fail to directly address the details of it. RAW the enemy somehow knows exactly which one is which despite the "perfect illusion" description, and is just a bit confused enough to give me Advantage attacking them, but somehow not Disadvantage on them attacking me or at least forcing them to figure it out? Because if we're being extremely pedantic, RAW, nothing even implies directly that they would need to throw a pebble or water or flour. Except for basic common sense. The ability passes the sniff test for what I'm suggesting without getting anywhere near "exploitation" territory.
Not like he's a rules lawyer or anything, but here's RPGBot on the subject in his class guide: "In most cases, creatures have no mechanism to identify the duplicate until they interact with it unless you’re doing something to obviously distinguish yourself from the duplicate. If you’re leaning into this, talk to your DM about keeping the answer secret from the DM, such as by keeping the answer on a face-down slip of paper. Whenever you move the duplicate, reconsider the answer and turn the paper face down. This will help your DM to play the monsters realistically, and it could be a lot of fun for both sides of the table." I don't think this is exploitation. I think this is reading words in a game about roleplaying and playing the role those words describe with their precise meaning and immediate implications.
I appreciate you giving this topic a good-faith response Xalthu. Until they address the ability directly (even candidly) it seems clear to only use the explicitly listed effects, despite the obvious roleplaying implications. At least for contexts like Adventurer's League.
It's frustrating that this is a class that got some good attention in 5.24, but they failed to address this and left the problematic text utterly unchanged.
I want to know if any RAW prevent the kind of play I'm looking to do with my Roguish Trickery Cleric. I know these things are up to DM discretion, but I also plan to play it in Adventurer's League so I'd like to know where the lines are.
Getting into melee range with my illusion, I figure the enemy has a 50/50 chance to strike the correct one. I've read that many DMs will even do some kind of roll to see if they understand what's happening the first time they whiff. All good. My question comes in when they do discover which is the real you: what's to stop me from using my bonus action to move the image into my space, aligning with it, and then stepping out again to "reset" the enemy's perception of which is which? Again, I know this will mostly be down to the DM, but does this at least work RAW?
The rules don't explicitly state any mechanics that I can tell for how an enemy determines which version is real or even that they have to at all, the way Mirror Image does. RAW, I suppose a DM could even say that they always know and always strike the correct version. Do I understand that correctly? Othwerwise, it kind of seems like a supercharged version of Mirror Image (one that even allows you to swap with it for even more trickery at level 6).
Am I trying to get too fancy with this, or does that all seem above-board?
It’s kind of a strange thing. It says the illusion is perfect. But at the same time, it doesn’t say anything about the enemy not knowing which is real and which is the illusion. (Looking at 24 version) For example, it says you have advantage on attacks when your illusion is adjacent. But it doesn’t say anything about there being any effect on the enemy’s attacks. One of the general principles of the game is: the rules don’t imply anything; if they don’t say they do something, they don’t do it. So the RAW conclusion to me is, the enemy will know which one is which and can attack you freely with no penalties, because there’s nothing in the description that says otherwise. The whole 50/50 chance and knowing what’s happening on a miss are all house rules. FWIW, they seem fairly reasonable, but still, definitely house rules and not RAW.
The benefits, by RAW, are limited to distraction when you make an attack, and casting from its location, and that’s about it. Until you level up, of course.
Interesting, that definitely makes sense. It's certainly an odd one, because it goes out of its way to describe it as "perfect". I wanna pull this thread going purely on RAW (because I'm pretty sure a majority of DMs would improvise one thing or another for the ruse, and that's a whole different discussion).
RAW, since summoning the image is a bonus action I suppose one could take the Influence action to actively try and confuse them? Is the Influence action versatile enough for that to work RAW, or would it still need some explicit text from the ability in order for the enemy not to know which is which?
This is the primary way I intend to play it. I'll be sitting back with a True Strike shortbow and 1 level of Rogue for Sneak Attack, using Invoke Duplicity to heal or cast cantrips like Thunderwave (I took Magic Initiate). But when push comes to shove, I also have a rapier, and there's definitely some fun to be had with this fighting up close and personal.
So aside from that, I found some relevant rules text that could apply here:
Unseen Attackers and Targets p26
When you make an attack roll against a target you can't see, you have Disadvantage on the roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you miss.
Emphasis mine. So in the case of Invoke Duplicity, rather than making a guess or flipping a coin, they would just attack with Disadvantage? Or would the attacker indeed have to make a guess, per the last sentence? While I know that this should be in the ability's text if it were to give such a defensive boon, this general rule would seem to apply. And if so, the trick of using my Bonus Action to merge with it and then re-separate should reset enemies' knowledge of my location?
@Jurmonder: If we're going that route, I'd say that trying to actually hit me with the pebble requires an attack roll. Otherwise who's to say I didn't dodge it? The image matches my gestures, therefore if the attack roll misses, both I and my image would appear to have dodged it, whichever it is.
I want to know if any RAW prevent the kind of play I'm looking to do with my Roguish Trickery Cleric. I know these things are up to DM discretion, but I also plan to play it in Adventurer's League so I'd like to know where the lines are.
Getting into melee range with my illusion, I figure the enemy has a 50/50 chance to strike the correct one. I've read that many DMs will even do some kind of roll to see if they understand what's happening the first time they whiff. All good. My question comes in when they do discover which is the real you: what's to stop me from using my bonus action to move the image into my space, aligning with it, and then stepping out again to "reset" the enemy's perception of which is which? Again, I know this will mostly be down to the DM, but does this at least work RAW?
The rules don't explicitly state any mechanics that I can tell for how an enemy determines which version is real or even that they have to at all, the way Mirror Image does. RAW, I suppose a DM could even say that they always know and always strike the correct version. Do I understand that correctly? Othwerwise, it kind of seems like a supercharged version of Mirror Image (one that even allows you to swap with it for even more trickery at level 6).
Am I trying to get too fancy with this, or does that all seem above-board?
I'm debating taking it myself. It seems solid, especially as a backline Sorcerer, but for ranged attacks it seems much better to just burn a level 1 slot for Shield than cast this at level 2 and probably have no one even shoot me. Dispersing clouds of whatever is definitely useful, but most DMs would probably give that to you for casting Gust anyway.
I think the real competition if the spell really fits your flavor is against Gust of Wind. It's a massive AOE control spell that could combo mercilessly with other PC's abilities or arena features. I guess it requires some careful positioning and coordination with your allies to not blow them off a cliff too, but it just seems more versatile. I'm not sure if most DM's would give Gust of Wind the same benefit against ranged attacks if they're shooting through the affected area, but I personally would.
So that leaves the only unique benefit of Warding Wind as the deafening. That's definitely not nothing, so I'm still torn.
Yep, still a problem. I wonder if they're internally trying to figure out what to do about Agonizing Blast + True Strike before fixing the feature lol.
I agree, without a believable reason to be doing it in character, I’d try to avoid it. I’ll likely be using my spell slots on Eldritch Smite anyway. But at least if I’ve felled an enemy and want to Blast someone further away next turn, RAW don’t expressly prohibit it.
Okay, thank you! So it's just a little unweildy in the app then.
In the new rules, drawing or stowing a weapon can be done as part of your attack action, so functionally is it basically as if I have them both equipped? For example, as a Pact of the Blade Warlock if I opened a battle by attacking with my sword, I wouldn't need to expend an action or bonus action to "swap" to the Rod of the Pact Keeper. Is that correct? Or is it only true of the Attack action and not for casting spells, meaning that would only work if the spell was cast and then a weapon attack made after?
Sorry to revivify a dead thread, but I have an odd interaction.
I have a Pact of the Blade Warlock wielding a two-handed scimitar. In the app, I have the option to “Equip” the sword, but the rod is “Use”. I can have them both equipped simultaneously. Now, because the sword is bonded I’m using it as my spellcasting focus. If I cast a spell, do I still need to be holding the rod in my hand to get the bonuses? RAW certainly imply that, but then idk why it’s a “Use” item (like a backpack) and not an equipped one.
1
Thanks for this, this is an excellent way to explain in roleplaying terms how an enemy might tell the difference without actually doing a check or attack roll. As it’s assumed that creatures don’t stay absolutely still between turns, it’s fair to assume that two creatures in melee with one another would do some feints or scouting strikes while looking for an opening (that opening being the attack they actually take during their turn). In doing so, it would become immediately obvious which were real. But scouting for an opening with the illusion would be the exact thing that gives the real Cleric advantage on their attack.
0
While the ability definitely could be exploitable by a bad-faith or excessively creative player, I think super basic, non-edge case situations still raise a lot of question marks.
Trickster Cleric is definitely intended to be sneaky; in fact, I'd be shocked to see one at my table that didn't take a level 1 dip into Rogue. As such, what do Rogues love to do a lot? Sneak right up behind someone and stab them in the back, right? So I sneak up behind an unaware enemy, Invoke Duplicity so there's two of me behind them, and then Sneak Attack them. We enter initiative and they turn to see two of me. Explain to me how it's exploiting the rules to assume this guy has no idea which illusion to attack first?
I'm not inventing some wild hyper-specific armchair scenario here. I'm describing the basic way a character like this is intended to function, and the RAW fail to directly address the details of it. RAW the enemy somehow knows exactly which one is which despite the "perfect illusion" description, and is just a bit confused enough to give me Advantage attacking them, but somehow not Disadvantage on them attacking me or at least forcing them to figure it out? Because if we're being extremely pedantic, RAW, nothing even implies directly that they would need to throw a pebble or water or flour. Except for basic common sense. The ability passes the sniff test for what I'm suggesting without getting anywhere near "exploitation" territory.
Not like he's a rules lawyer or anything, but here's RPGBot on the subject in his class guide:
"In most cases, creatures have no mechanism to identify the duplicate until they interact with it unless you’re doing something to obviously distinguish yourself from the duplicate. If you’re leaning into this, talk to your DM about keeping the answer secret from the DM, such as by keeping the answer on a face-down slip of paper. Whenever you move the duplicate, reconsider the answer and turn the paper face down. This will help your DM to play the monsters realistically, and it could be a lot of fun for both sides of the table."
I don't think this is exploitation. I think this is reading words in a game about roleplaying and playing the role those words describe with their precise meaning and immediate implications.
0
I appreciate you giving this topic a good-faith response Xalthu. Until they address the ability directly (even candidly) it seems clear to only use the explicitly listed effects, despite the obvious roleplaying implications. At least for contexts like Adventurer's League.
It's frustrating that this is a class that got some good attention in 5.24, but they failed to address this and left the problematic text utterly unchanged.
0
Interesting, that definitely makes sense. It's certainly an odd one, because it goes out of its way to describe it as "perfect". I wanna pull this thread going purely on RAW (because I'm pretty sure a majority of DMs would improvise one thing or another for the ruse, and that's a whole different discussion).
RAW, since summoning the image is a bonus action I suppose one could take the Influence action to actively try and confuse them? Is the Influence action versatile enough for that to work RAW, or would it still need some explicit text from the ability in order for the enemy not to know which is which?
0
This is the primary way I intend to play it. I'll be sitting back with a True Strike shortbow and 1 level of Rogue for Sneak Attack, using Invoke Duplicity to heal or cast cantrips like Thunderwave (I took Magic Initiate). But when push comes to shove, I also have a rapier, and there's definitely some fun to be had with this fighting up close and personal.
So aside from that, I found some relevant rules text that could apply here:
Emphasis mine. So in the case of Invoke Duplicity, rather than making a guess or flipping a coin, they would just attack with Disadvantage? Or would the attacker indeed have to make a guess, per the last sentence? While I know that this should be in the ability's text if it were to give such a defensive boon, this general rule would seem to apply. And if so, the trick of using my Bonus Action to merge with it and then re-separate should reset enemies' knowledge of my location?
0
@Jurmonder: If we're going that route, I'd say that trying to actually hit me with the pebble requires an attack roll. Otherwise who's to say I didn't dodge it? The image matches my gestures, therefore if the attack roll misses, both I and my image would appear to have dodged it, whichever it is.
0
I want to know if any RAW prevent the kind of play I'm looking to do with my Roguish Trickery Cleric. I know these things are up to DM discretion, but I also plan to play it in Adventurer's League so I'd like to know where the lines are.
Getting into melee range with my illusion, I figure the enemy has a 50/50 chance to strike the correct one. I've read that many DMs will even do some kind of roll to see if they understand what's happening the first time they whiff. All good. My question comes in when they do discover which is the real you: what's to stop me from using my bonus action to move the image into my space, aligning with it, and then stepping out again to "reset" the enemy's perception of which is which? Again, I know this will mostly be down to the DM, but does this at least work RAW?
The rules don't explicitly state any mechanics that I can tell for how an enemy determines which version is real or even that they have to at all, the way Mirror Image does. RAW, I suppose a DM could even say that they always know and always strike the correct version. Do I understand that correctly? Othwerwise, it kind of seems like a supercharged version of Mirror Image (one that even allows you to swap with it for even more trickery at level 6).
Am I trying to get too fancy with this, or does that all seem above-board?
0
I'm debating taking it myself. It seems solid, especially as a backline Sorcerer, but for ranged attacks it seems much better to just burn a level 1 slot for Shield than cast this at level 2 and probably have no one even shoot me. Dispersing clouds of whatever is definitely useful, but most DMs would probably give that to you for casting Gust anyway.
I think the real competition if the spell really fits your flavor is against Gust of Wind. It's a massive AOE control spell that could combo mercilessly with other PC's abilities or arena features. I guess it requires some careful positioning and coordination with your allies to not blow them off a cliff too, but it just seems more versatile. I'm not sure if most DM's would give Gust of Wind the same benefit against ranged attacks if they're shooting through the affected area, but I personally would.
So that leaves the only unique benefit of Warding Wind as the deafening. That's definitely not nothing, so I'm still torn.
2
How often do they even patch this app? Are we gonna have to wait for a whole new hardcover release to get an update?
OH WAIT! We just had one, and they didn't fix it. This is SO IMPORTANT to playing the 2024 Warlock, I am flabbergasted that they haven't fixed it.
0
Yep, still a problem. I wonder if they're internally trying to figure out what to do about Agonizing Blast + True Strike before fixing the feature lol.
0
I agree, without a believable reason to be doing it in character, I’d try to avoid it. I’ll likely be using my spell slots on Eldritch Smite anyway. But at least if I’ve felled an enemy and want to Blast someone further away next turn, RAW don’t expressly prohibit it.
Again, appreciate the help!
0
Okay, thank you! So it's just a little unweildy in the app then.
In the new rules, drawing or stowing a weapon can be done as part of your attack action, so functionally is it basically as if I have them both equipped? For example, as a Pact of the Blade Warlock if I opened a battle by attacking with my sword, I wouldn't need to expend an action or bonus action to "swap" to the Rod of the Pact Keeper. Is that correct? Or is it only true of the Attack action and not for casting spells, meaning that would only work if the spell was cast and then a weapon attack made after?
0
Sorry to revivify a dead thread, but I have an odd interaction.
I have a Pact of the Blade Warlock wielding a two-handed scimitar. In the app, I have the option to “Equip” the sword, but the rod is “Use”. I can have them both equipped simultaneously. Now, because the sword is bonded I’m using it as my spellcasting focus. If I cast a spell, do I still need to be holding the rod in my hand to get the bonuses? RAW certainly imply that, but then idk why it’s a “Use” item (like a backpack) and not an equipped one.