Does this work? I want to know before I waste my time creating him in AL, only to find out he doesn't work.
I realize Eldritch Blast can not be twinned, but is the following possible (3rd level warlock/3rd level sorcerer with the Agonizing Blast Eldritch Invocation)?:
Round 1: Spend 1 Sorcery Point to Twin Spell Hex (bonus action); cast Eldritch Blast cantrip. Assuming both EB's hit: (2d6 damage from Hex, +2d10 damage from EB, + 6 damage from a 16 CHA).
Round 2: cast Eldritch Blast; spend 2 Sorcery Points to Quicken Eldritch Blast. Assuming all 4 EB's hit: 4d6 damage from Hex, + 4d10 damage from EB, + 12 damage from CHA.
Thank you.
Why would you twin Hex? Hex is a long duration spell that adds +d6 damage per hit. Since quickening EB is perfectly Kosher for a sorc/warlock multiclass, I don't see why you wouldn't get hex for every EB attack (both from the action and bonus action).
good point! I forgot that you can move Hex to another target.
Polaris wrote:
Once you've twinned it, would it stay twinned until the time was up or you lost CONCEN?
Ainulindalion wrote:
FunkySpunk wrote:
Cantrips scale with total character level, Pauper, not class level. Until your post, I've never seen anyone say otherwise.
If your interpretation is correct, then Magic Initiate and Spell Sniper are massively underpowered with a cross class selection, and any cantrips granted by race (that do damage, anyway) are underpowered as well, as they cannot increase in strength.
Incorrect pauper. Cantrips scale with character level (not class level). Both a 20th level warlocks and a warlock 2/fighter 18s Eldritch blast are identical (assuming identical invocations). They both create 4 bolts.
Spells scale in one of two ways. Character level (in the case of cantrips) or spell slot (in the case of all other spells). Cantrips scale much like proficiency bonus.
If this wasn't the case - a high elfs cantrip, or a cantrip learned via Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper would quickly lose value, as would any MC spellcasters cantrips.
Why would a cantrip scale with total character level? That implies that a Wizard 20 casts fire bolt with the same efficacy as a Fighter19/Wizard1.
If you can point me to something in the PH that says cantrips are cast at character rather than caster level, I'll change my explanation. Based on the rules in the PH, though, it seems clear that the level in the spell description is referring to caster level, just as the level for warlock invocations refers to warlock level (even though it doesn't say so explicitly).
--
Pauper
As for the feats, the cantrip doesn't lose value at all if the character is single-classed; that character's caster level would always equal her character level. This might lead to some weirdness if a fighter takes Magic Initiate, but that's OK.
Also, as for cantrips losing effectivness as a character levels, I don't think it's intended that cantrips are the most powerful option for a character at high level, either -- a fighter who's using a wizard cantrip instead of attacking with a weapon indicates a problem with the game.
--
Pauper
They scale with "level" as listed in their spell description. In most instances where the word "level" is used, it refers to "character level". If it refers to class level - it almost always says "level in this class" or "level in the X class".
The only exception to this rule I know of is warlock invocations which simply use the word "level". This caused a major debate for several months until the devs clarified that it was an editing mistake and that it should have said "level in this class".
The devs have said on numerous occasions that cantrips scale with character level. Furthermore - they scaled with character level even during the play test (at a time when we had regular communication with the devs regarding ambiguous wording and intent).
It was also specifically discussed in a design & development article. Said article spoke of the various ways they were trying to keep spells relevant for multiclass spellcasters without it being OP. It discussed the issues previous editions had with spell scaling and spell slots and the design reasons behind spells scaling with spell slot and cantrips scaling with total level.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Regardless, if the original poster shows up at my table with that build, don't expect it to work the way he explains it.
--
Pauper
Pauper, for your interpretation to be correct you will need to cite rules that say it uses class level.
As I stated in my last post - with one exception (which was a mistake) - the game always uses phrases such as "level in the monk class" or "levels in the class you chose" or "levels in this class" when referring to class level
If it just says "your level" (or similar) it means character level.
I can cite dozens of examples of this in the rules. Name one example (other than invocations) that refers to "class level" but only uses the phrase "your level".
Cantrips use the phrase "your level" (or similar). Ergo - it speaks about character level
Its poorly worded, but 5e doesn't use the terms "character level" or "class level". The choice of using plain English was a detriment in this instance.
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Pauper wrote:
It's examples of people who say that they will just choose to disregard clearly established rules in favor of their interpretations that makes me wish AL had some teeth.
Pauper wrote:
Ravix wrote:
Obviously they should erupt from the ground and drag the faulty DM down to the depths of the Underdark.
Ainulindalion wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Why does the ranger only have +7 to hit. Assuming all else is equal (+3 stat, +3 proficiency bonus) - the ranger should also have +2 to hit from the archery FS. It should have a +8 to hit vs. the war/sorc +6 at 5th level.
Kalani wrote:
Right... I must have missed that particular post. Makes more sense now (I assume the +1 to hit and damage is from gaining an extra ABI?).
Pauper wrote:
For an, at that level, once every long rest action. I don't really see an issue powerwise..
Pauper wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Unfortunately - customizing NPCs are listed as an optional/variant rule. AL does not allow the use of optional or variant rules from the DMG
Pauper wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
FunkySpunk wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
You guys are way too hung up on the rules of enemies in a module.
I think it's pretty cool if the DM feels the need to enhance minor enemies to create a challenge for my PC. It means my goal of overpowering my character was accomplished, and the players and DM are all having a little more fun.
FunkySpunk wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
FunkySpunk wrote:
In case Pauper wasn't convinced on the cantrip thing, and because I didn't see it linked anywhere:
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/ability-check
Says, unequivocally, that a barbarian 2 / cleric 3 casts sacred flame as a 5th-level character.
I have played this build and it works wonderfully. Other people usually want me to play that character because it can take the edge off of situations that can go bad. I've played it for expeditions I've never really upset anybody, but only once did someone get annoyed but that person dislikes power gaming anyway.
FunkySpunk wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Perhaps I should start advocating for Chris Perkins's tweets to be AL-legal. When asked for some 'less evil' DM advice, he tweeted:
"Have them wake up in the middle of a dungeon with no gear every time they do something you don't like."
This guy's DM'ed for Wil Wheaton and Penny Arcade! His advice has to be good! 
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
After the game, the DM always allows you to tweak a character (I won't be playing again for a few weeks). One thing I was thinking about was adding a couple of Fighter levels in there, for the heavy armor and action surge.
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
That - or have some of the Druids use combat wildshape and tear the party a new one.
Pauper wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
abanathie wrote:
shivafang wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
shivafang wrote:
shivafang wrote:
RulesJD wrote:
Mah bad.
I agree with Cah on this. The power gamer has as much right to the game as non-power gamer. Most people power game just to a lesser degree. Most people will place the highest score in the primary stat; that is a lesser form of power gaming. Not everyone does this, but it is a common place occurence. It doesn't change the fact that one is attempting to stack the statistical probability in their favor. Even an RP player that places Expertise and high attributes into social skills is power gaming; they are just not power gaming the combat pillar.
The power divide in this edition is far less than in past editions. If two players are competing for the combat limelight, just as an example, I don't see the point of limiting the player that found the better way of limelighting. Chances are both characters are still more than viable and contribute to combat encounters. If one player is optimized for a social encounter, then I don't see the point of limiting a character optimized for combat so that both players can share the combat limelight while another one still excels at the social pillar.
CahPahkah wrote:
It all depends on why and how someone optimizes, why and how someone roleplays, etc. Optimizers can be fine and they can be horrible, exactly the same goes for RP-ers or any other playstyle.
Heck its not as if I could ever claim to run non-optimized characters. I enjoy the optimizing puzzle. However I feel all optimizing does is give you a bag of whoop-ass. Its still a choice wether to open that bag. In my experience that tends to be an issue for some. Just like some people can never not open a can of hamming it up..err. roleplaying 
It all comes down to adjusting your playstyle to the table you are at, i.e. it is not all about you and its not only up to the DM to balance the playstyles at a table. Players have a responsibility too.
That said, over optimization (i.e. being mechanically efficient way beyond what the adventures take into account) has historically led to an arms race in encounter design. I would very much prefer we at least try to avoid that this time around. But limiting the more rediculous power options is just a small part of that. My preference is to just not cater to optimizers in adventure design. Design for middle of the road characters and let the DMs sort it out. Sure some optimizers will turn the big boss fight into a 5 minute roll-off if the DM cannot or will not compensate. Who cares? Thats only a problem if there are people at the table that do not want it to be that way. And if that is the case, some people failed to adjust their playstyle...
Balancing a table full of different playstyles is hard. Getting the ham actor (guilty) to not ruin things for the combat tatician (guilty) and to have neither outshined by the mechanical nightmare (guilty) can be like walking a razors edge blindfolded with 4-8 people at the same time..... But if it works, its awesome. And as long as we all remember that its about the group experience and not our egos (DM and player alike) its often awesome..
I too enjoy optimizing but am keenly aware that doing so requires a balanced approach so as not to overshadow the other players.
Ideally, I like to coordinate with my fellow PCs and design a character that fulfills a niche. Currently that niche is to be the parties meat-shield (tank) with the goal being to minimize the drain on healing resources.
To that end I am playing a Moon Druid/barbarian with the sentinel feat. My goal is to force bad decisions on the DM (attack me and be forced to wear down a bucket of free HPs with resistance; or attack my high AC buddy, risk missing and getting clobbered for the attempt).
Recently - said character was critical in walling/tanking a lycanthrope while the party fought about a dozen cultists on the rear front.
Fortunately for me - I had traded for an insignia of claws which allowed me to hit the bugger (or the battle would have turned out very differently as we only had a shillelagh, a silent dagger and a handful of spells otherwise).
Either way - I didn't overshadow the rest of the party. I filled a very important role in said battle - but other PCs filled equally important roles.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
The issue of RP vs optimizer did if fact happen with me at winter fantasy playing DDEX1-13. I was playing a character that I was doing very well with skill roles while talking my group of 6 out of several combats, this pissed off the optimizer because when we finally got to a combat the player playing fighter/barbarian mad some snide comments at the table because I had role played the group out of a few combats which he was bored since he wanted to show off how much damage he could do which was a lot when the combat got going.
Nozareem wrote:
FunkySpunk wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Well Put Kalani!
I am (and have always been) a Rules Lawyer first and foremost with a smattering of Optimizer and Actor (I always insist my RL alignment is Lawful Neutral - follow the Law/Rules for good or for ill). I too have had to learn to tone down the Rules Lawyer bit so it doesn't disrupt play and strengthen the Actor side to compensate and have more fun around the table for everyone.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
This is already covered in the ALPG
How do I deal with players of evil characters, or who venerate an evil deity?
Just because a player has a character with a darker side doesn’t mean that player has a license to make the game less fun for others at the table. Players are encouraged to have their characters work together despite their differences; a little competition is fine, as long as it stays fun for everyone involved and doesn’t result in other players getting shut out of the experience. If a DM or another player feels as though a player is creating an uncomfortable situation through the excuse of “it’s what my character would do,” the DM is free to give the offending player a warning for disruptive behavior, and if it persists, ask the organizer to remove the player from the table.
I know it's already cover, but many DM don't understand that the paladin killing every creature considered evil on sight because EVIL, even if the party want to keep the evil creature alive (because it's a baby orc, baecause they want to interogate him, they want to bring him for a fair trial etc...), is as disruptive as a chaotic Evil character. sorry but in season 1 one of the adventure end with the group meeting witha black dragon who is willing to answer 5 questions, then he get bored and attack the party. Well when one of the RPer of the group decided to attack the dragon on sight because hsi faction ask him to kill the dragon or drove the dragon away from the marsh, he diminished the fun that other player would had have talking with the dragon. When the same RPer decided to free the demon in the portal by removing the holy sword binding the demon in exchange of destorying the portal (which was the main mission) he ruined the fun of everyone else (specially the paladin player) who wanted to fight and kill that demon then destroy the portal themself.
I would like if ALPG could be more descriptive on what Disruptive means. because a lot of people believe that allowing a character to act in a disruptive way is ok if it's "because that how my character would act" RP bullshit response, as long that he is not attacking the group.
But sorry it also disruptive to delay to game because you want to flirt with the barmaid. AL ssession are usually 4 hours long and you are suppose to do a module that is written to be played within 3-4 hours. So if you make the group waste 20 minute to flirt with the barmaid, then kill the orc who would have gave you a clues so forcing the group to spend 20 extra minute searching for more clues, then because you are unable to hit the target in combat because you did a sorcerer with 8 Charisma so combat take an extra 20 minutes. well chance are you will prevent the group from finishing the adventure within the session duration and personally I think it's disruptive.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that only fully optimized character are allowed to play, if you want to create a halfling barbarian go for it, but please try to find a way to make him usefull to the party. Why shoudl the group bring your halfling barbarian instead of the half orc barbarian. you got a better stealth and better AC ok cool your in the group you can be the defender of the group and make sur to protect our squishies on the back line.
I'm also not saying that flriting with the barmaid is bad, but you need to be a team player, if the team is ready to leave and want to go do the adventure, you need to stop flirting with the barmaid. and this is also in the description of disruptive play, hugging the DM attention is consider disruptive, and RPer are really good at requiring the DM to describe what happen when he look under teh skirt of teh barmaid, and to describe the panties, or forcing the DM to bring guard to arrest him because he stole a noble wallet or something or force a duel with a noble because he flirted with his wife, adding encounter that are not in the module., encounter worth 0 XP (since they are not in the module) worht 0 treasure (sicne they are not in the module) that will bring 0 clues (since they are not in the module) and will make the entire table waste time (since the module estimated play time do not include duals with the nobility)
A good DM is normaly able to tell that RPer to stop wasting time flirting with the barmaid and to move forward, but in AL since DM are a rare commodity, often you get beginning DM who believe that becaue people are laughing at the gnome flirting with the noble women it's fine it he should allow the interaction and play with it, which is great in a home game where you can stretch a 4 hour game into a 6 hour game, but in an organize play, specially in store, stretching that 4 hours slot is not always possible, and such interaction should be skipped since it will prevent the party from completing the module. So guideline should be given so even new DM understand that wastig too much time, even in a fun way, is counter productive the to idea of finishign a module every session.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I should probably start a series of articles on this topic and offer suggestions and advice how to handle it. All this toxicity in the game community is unhealthy and all this RP vs Optimizer nonsense is just that - nonsense.
I RP and optimize equally. I optimize a build and roleplay a personality to match. Take my Leprecaun for example (forest gnome conjuror). He is highly efficient and deadly in combat but is a peach to RP (I do the accent and everything).
Heres the thing - neither RP nor optimization are incompatible or mutually exclusive. I chose RP skills and spells as well as combat skills and spells. I also use no combat spells and abilities in unusual ways (such as using minor commutation to summon a self-locking chest, which I climbed inside to avoid injury).
I wish people would just get along and stop being jerks. It's the jerks who are screwing everything. Doesn't matter if they optimize, or RP or are an explorer or an actor. Selfish jerks and glory hogs are the problem
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
My Leprecaun also has a couple non optimized magic items. In his possession he has a ring of evasion, a belt of dwarven kind (helps boost HP) and a unique magic item (an iron pot of elemental detection).
The pot was chosen purely for RP reasons (I could have chosen any mundane item of 50gp or less - I chose the pot because what is a Leprecaun without a magic pot). This was a coordinator reward (glows if elementals are within 120 ft - kind of like Sting from LotR).
Still - I could have just as easily chosen an arcane focus, weapon or armor. I went with the flavourful choice.
I would suggest that articles like that would have to have multiple authors. Untill that time, nowhere in the future, where we find someone that is all knowing, there are way too many viewpoints involved here. It may be a thought to have Kalani start such a set of articles with a set of situations/examples and her advice on how to handle it. And then use that same template to ask other DMs how they would handle the same situation?
I agree. Changing toxic beliefs is not something that one person can do alone. That and I will state for the record that I don't have an ego big enough to think I have the answer to everything RPG related.
I have my experience, tricks, skills and perspective (much of which i gained reading similar articles in dragon/dungeon in the 90s-2000s and by talking with other DMs and absorbing their advice)
. I am willing to pass that knowledge on but again - I don't think I know everything or think my tricks are the "one true way".
Were I to write such articles, it would be from the perspective of - here is a pervasive problem and here are a bucket load of suggestions how to handle the problem.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Did anyone else notice that with some horrible mangling of latin we can reword Wheaton's law into "Don't be a fallacy" ?
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Both sides of the RP vs optimizing issue are not only oversimplifying the issues involved to a horrifying degree, which doesn't help. Add to that everyone arguing from personal experience, which is immutable. The likely situation is, as clicha as it is, that both sides are partially right.
A thorough investigation of all the motivations for jerkiness, optimizing and roleplaying, while worthwhile to me, is likely to require academic level research. If someone has the time.. by all means,
But what he heck, lets get on the anecdotal bandwagon
I've had jerks ruin my tables. Optimizer Jerks, RP Jerks, midde of the road jerks. Problem always was, they were jerks. I know plenty of optimizers that love the puzzle, but that are totally capable of playing nice. Would even anecdotally claim thats the majority of them. As I have seen RPers that will totally not mind getting the 5 other characters killed because their characters mother had an affair with a noble and they would always go smooch behind a black curtain and the bag that the kings put the parties payment in is of the same black fabric and it triggered a flashback and now she must attack the king... Some people get VERY involved
Its all about player motivations. And thats exactly why a statement like "choosing to attack is roleplaying" is nonsense. What is the motivation behind THE PLAYER wanting to attack. Is it because their character has an IC reason to do so, or is it because she is getting bored OC, or they want to show of this cool new trick that their latest feat gave them.. etc.. etc.. Of course QuertyAzerty is right in saying that choosing to attack on sight is not an optimizers thing either. Its neither. Its a player thing.
I for one have no problem with optimizing, as long as players know WHEN to use it. Just like I am cool with involved RP, as long as players know WHEN not to use it.
I know thats not easy from personal experience, I generally do not get to play in Organized Play very much so when I do i can go overboard on either. But luckily I tend to be at tables with people that can and will communicate and just let me know I am creeping up on the jerk erge.
Oh and as a stray thought: as a DM I find it much easier to compensate for optimizers than for overly involved RP-ers. Optimizers at least tend to want to stay on track. I love a good Rp sidetrack, but AL slots are unforgiving timewise.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I'm officially asking that an ORC come and lock this thread, because I clearly can't stop myself.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
A Moon Druid / Bear Barbarian is perhaps the closest thing we have to CoDzilla in 5E... It is a lethal tank on the battlefield (but little else).. I am actually playing such a character myself (but my motivations are to conserve party healing resources and improve party longevity, rather than being a glory-hog). I am there to tank the enemy hits and give as good as I get. I have no interest in overshadowing the other PCs and to consider me their personal shield.
For those not familiar with CoDzilla
Imagine a Moon Druid/Barbarian, except with full spellcasting abilities due having the 17th level druid ability as early as 4th level (thanks to the natural spell feat) and you will get an idea how broken the CoDzilla builds were. Now combine this with a prestige class (think subclass but better) which allowed them to become any monster in the game they desired.
If you are imagining a firebreathing 9-headed spellcasting hydra, you aren't trying hard enough (they were worse).
On the cleric side - imagine a Cleric, which has the same number of attacks as a fighter and the same attack bonus due to the use of a single spell (divine favor IIRC), but also has full spellcasting abilities. Now imagine that this character also gains the benefits of shillelagh with all simple weapons (not just quarterstaffs), the monks unarmored defense, and the paladins aura of courage and you get an idea how broken these characters were.
And I won't even touch "Pun-Pun"
The 1st level Kobold God (originally a 5th level Kobold god).
It is for this reason that I fully support the ALs use of "Story Origins"
As each of these OP characters require feats, spells, abilities, etc from multiple sources. Independently, each of these features were innoculous, but combined - they create characters which invalidate their fellow party members.
Kalani wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
(snipped)
Coredump00 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Sometimes, I just take off the gloves and show my players that they need to be a little more cautious.
For example
- HotDQ Ep7: The party knocked on Trepsin's door and failed to give the correct sign. Trepsin responded by grabbing a random character, pulling them inside, closing the door, resting his back against the door (which was a DC 20 to open to begin with) and then tearing them to shreds in a single turn. The character was killed outright which stunned the party and caused them to play more cautiously from then on.
I am not a cruel DM however, as I knew full well that the party had access to several tears of bahamut which would expire before next session, which they used to revive their fallen companion.
Kalani wrote:
MasterNamer wrote: