Just collecting the balance things i've seen or found that i feel need adressed, or just reworded.
Call them houserules if you dislike the term "errata".
I'm not going over spelling, grammer, or other wording mistakes (destructive wave/smite).
Much of the credit goes to other form users.
(broken)
Simulacrum+Wish: Simulacrums cannot cast simulacrum, wish, or regain hit points outside the lab. (can't cast level 7+ spells? Maybe change wish to not remove costs?)
Temperate (minor magic effect): Sufferes no harm from tempetures.
(big ones)
Conjure X: Creatures do not have any 1/day spells or spell like effects. (not neccicaraly the best fix..)
Quicken: Can't use another non-cantrip spell or invocation.
Illusury Reality/Minor Conjuration: Cannot be used for material components.
Polearm Master: Make an Oppertunity Attack with the polearm. (and not warcaster). The dev's have already said this was the intent.
(moderate ones)
Charger: Deal extra damage equal to 2x your proficency.
Sharpshooter: -3 to hit, +6 damage.
Martial Adept: 2 dice.
Beastmaster: Give beast hit dice. Level 2: revivify beast spell.
1 action: touch
Component: A scrap of fur, fang, or tooth belonging to the creature.
If a beast died in the last minute, it comes back to life with 1 HP
At higher level: At level 3, the beast could of died in the past day. At level 4, the beasts regenerates missing body parts. At level 5, you don't need the beasts body, it regenerates from the fur.
Grappler: Can grapple creatures 2 sizes larger. As an attack, you can try and pin someone.
Greatweapon Master: -3 to hit, +6 damage.
Mordenkain's sword: Durration: 8 hours
Pact Blade: Can use Cha for melee attacks with the pact weapon.
(Minor ones)
Magic Secrets: Can be retrained (possibly can not be retrained, either way but this needs clarified).
Medium Armor Mastery: +1 AC, no penalty to sealth. (so 12 or 14 Dex people see a benifit).
Elemental Adept: Reroll 1's. Use the new result.
Savage Attacker: +1 Str and...
Rangers: Replace Primeval Awareness with extra "domain" spells.
Beastmaster:
3: animal friendship, speak with animals.
5: Revivify Beast (see above), Warding Bond.
9: conjure animals, protection from energy
13: stone skin, dominate beast
17: Rary’s Telepathic Bond, Awaken
Hunter:
3: Hunter's Mark, Primeval Awareness (as a level 1 ranger spell).
5: Pass without a trace, locate animal or plants
9: Nondetect, Water Walk
13: Freedom of Movement, Locate Creature
17:Tree Stride, Scrying.
Fighter (Champion): Your hit dice are d12. (or some other kind of buff, crits range just doesn't add enough, paticularly for those who want a simple sword & board or archery)
Which Bolt: At higher level's, increase the intial and ongoing damage by...
Contagion: Disadvanatage on Con saves does not apply to itself. (also, why does contagion not spread?)
Lighting Arrow: each creature within 10' of the target (including the target) takes 2d8... (just to clarify it).
If i missed any, let me know.
I don't think that is what they are considering errata, some of it even seems beyond a FAQ. You are looking for redesign, which is a long way off.
And the GWM/SS change is a pretty big nerf. Make it useless most of the time.
Jeremy Crawford stated in the intro article of Sage Advice that redesigns of game elements is specifically not what errata is going to be this time around.
As far as redesign suggestions go... I think precisely none of these are necessary.
Figure I might as well weight in with my opinions on these, as I do like some of them.
mellored wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I would definitely take Martial Adept on a lot of characters if it gave 2 dice. It's a feat that adds a lot of utlity and flavor to almost any class. Even a wizard built as a leadership type character could make great use of manuevers like Rally
Oriet wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Okay, my big math post earlier.... its wrong. I made some changes to see how the -3/+6 changes would work, and didn't change them all back... so the numbers are off. I have noted that above, and will redo and update the numbers.
Coredump00 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Here is my updated post:
Sharpshooter: -3 to hit, +6 damage.
Bless is +2.5. And it's not a 9th level spell.
But let's look at what happens with no support at all. Just a straight fighter with crossbow expertise.
20 Dex, archery, +2 handbow = 15 to hit, vs 21 = hit on a 6 (70%)
1d6+7 = 10.5 * .7 = 7.35
21.5 * 0.45 = 9.675
31% more damage.
My modifications.
16.5 * .55 = 9.075
23% more damage.
That's still plenty of reason to take sharp shooter.
As for hunter's quarry, that takes your bonus action, which means no extra attack, which means less damage.
It's also limited per day.
So yea, it should deal more per attack.
Now, the first version will still do more damage per round, but only because you get an extra attack with CE... Now you need to decide if an extra attack is OP for a feat or not.
mellored wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
Even if the local ruby market is bone dry they can use wish to get an incredible amount of powdered ruby. Just cast simulacrum the following day so as to ensure they avoid the necrotic damage, then hop off on adventures while their simulacrum makes dozens of them from the clippings of their hair cut. All they would have to do to make sure the simulacrum does as they want is to leave a list of things to do given different circumstances (such as if they run low on powdered ruby, they get attacked, they run out of hair, etc) and order it to follow the list until they can give further commands. If simulacrum cannot make other simulacrum, cast wish (including with the simulacrum taking the risk of never being able to cast wish again, which they won't anyways as they can never recover their singular 9th level spell slot anyways), or other potent magic, then a wizard leaving their simulacrum to do stuff for them in town while they're off adventuring still has lots of potential (such as having the simulacrum use spell scrolls for the casting of spells while making a magic item).
As for my commenting on "realism" for hand crossbows, I suppose it would be better to frame it as maintaining suspencion of disbelif. Because I know how real-world bows and crossbows work, having them act contrary to that breaks that suspension. A maximum of 20d6 falling damage also makes sense to me since I understand how terminal velocity works. Other mechanics go the same way; either it resembles an understood/understandable mechanic and it is consistent with such, or it breaks suspension of disbelief.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I will admit that the fact that you can wish for the components does present an issue. But that's a problem with wish and not with every spell with a material component.
mellored wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Aurek wrote:
mellored wrote:
Jenks wrote:
mellored wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
mellored wrote:
What do you think of giving manuevers (like what the battlemaster gets) to the beastmaster's animal companion? It makes sense doesn't it? You've trained your pet to make special moves in combat.
I think it would make the subclass much more interesting.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
@Mellored
You missed the Sorcery Point to Spell Slots trick, which could get really cheesy with some downtime as well (especially with Warlock/Sorcerers).
Jenks wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
I would also add that Minor Conjuration can't be used for material components.
jaelis wrote:
I would be down for simulacrum can't cast simulacrum. Easy change, doesn't affect too much. Path of least resistance.
also @bloodscythe
control != ban. You are coming at it from the view that control means you get to cast it a couple of times ever, which is incorrect. It's more about allowing the player to cast it, but allowing the dm to pull in the reigns if he feels he needs to.
mellored wrote:
Aaron, are you really claiming that getting hundreds of simulacra is just fine, that's how the spell is supposed to work? It seems like maybe your point is more that it doesn't make the game unplayable... OK sure. But it definitely seems messed up to me, and easy to fix.
bonethug0108 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
You know you could just make them use ALL of the spell components for Simulacrum (instead of subbing an arcane focus for the components without a gold price listed). It requires a part of the creature being copied. Eventually the wizard will run out of hair and fingernails.
Kind of mind boggling that this even needs a rule. It's so unfun I can't imagine what kind of person would inflict this on the table. Makes for a good discussion/thought exercise and a terrible approach to actually playing the game.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I don't understand the obsession about rubies here. Use wish, it avoids the question entirely.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Isn't the simulcrum casting simulcrum already somewhat limited? It's a 7th level spell, so you're only going to have 1 at 13th level (max 4 at 20th if you use up higher level slots). So a 13th level wizard uses their 7th level slot to create a simulcrum, the simulcrum doesn't have the spell slot available and has no way of recovering it ... right? I don't have my PHB handy.
Admittedly a 20th level caster could make quite a few copies (3 copies from him, 3 from each of the original 3, 2 from those copies so around 20?). In addition, each copy has no way of recovering spells. Nice for going nova, but expensive and not an infinite army.
Assuming of course I'm remembering the spell correctly and that the simulcrum has the spell slots available that the caster had when they cast the spell. If not ... never mind. 
OoftaMeg wrote:
@OoftaMeg:
It does escalate more quickly than that:
@13th Level, you can only have one - the one you create.
@15th Level, you can create a Simulacra that has an 8th lvl Spell Slot. The next day (once you have recovered your used 7th lvl Slot), You have your Simulacra create one of you (Simulacra Mk2) that now has a 7th and an 8th lvl Slot. The Next day, You and Simulacra Mk2 both create a copies of you (Simulacra Mk3) with only the 8th lvl Slot (this kills Simulacra Mk1, which you don't need anymore). The next day you rest, Simulacras Mk3 create copies of you, Simulacra Mk2 starts 30 minutes later (killing its Mk3), and you have 3 Mk4 (7th +8th).....rinse, wash, repeat.
After many , many days, and many, many wasted rubies you have many Even Generation Simulacra with 6th lvl slots and lower, and many, many Even Generation Simulacra with 8th lvl slots and lower and you can beigin your reign of terror.....
Added bard's magic secret retraining.
Either way works, though i favor allowing retraining. Possibly retraining with a level limit.
Bumpo wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Jenks wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
1: cast wish yourself, get 25,000 in powdered rubies.
2: rest (8 hours)
3: cast simulacrum (12 hours).
4: infinite clone army.
so yes, you can.
but even if you had to go on an adventure to get rubies, it's still broken.
mellored wrote:
On this ban/not ban issue look at it like a faucet of water. If i say you can never drink out of the faucet that is a ban. If i only let you drink once or twice ever you could say I'm temporarily lifting the ban. If it's more than that then it really isn't a ban but rather a limit on the amount of water you get from the faucet. That's what is being said.
Some DMs will let you drink how much you want no matter what. Other DMs may never let you drink. Others still may have a certain limit they'll let you drink. Some may let you drink freely until they see you wasting the water (abusing the system). Only one of these is a ban.
bonethug0108 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
That sounds fine, but in that case wouldn't it be a lot clearer and simpler if they just put in the spell description that the simulacrum can't cast simulacrum? It would be the same in the end, just more obvious for everyone.
Aside from that I still would like to limit the simulacrum from casting wish. Or maybe if the sim casts wish, the original wizard faces the penalty effects.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Added Polearm Master. Which should say you can only make OA's with the polearm (and not with warcaster).
The dev's have already stated that's the intent.
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Don't forget that all the simulacrums act on the Wizard's turn in combat. If the Wizard isn't in the combat, can they act?
mellored wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
You know, I feel like if you pick and poke at an complicated mechanic like this, you can find an argument for almost anything. But if you just read the spell in normal language, and assume that rubies are as available in the game as they are in real life, then the army of clones is a fairly obvious ploy. A DM can find any number of ways to prevent it, either by fiat or rule interpretation. But unless you think the clone army is genuinely legit and should be permitted, then I think asking for a revision is pretty reasonable.
Orethalion wrote:
Oriet wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
mellored wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
This discussion seems to be devolving over pure semantics. Can we get back to discussing suggested errata fixes and let WOTC decide if they find them relevant or not? There's lots of really useless banter going back and forth about how in someone's specific game an errata suggestion won't be relevant or even in the majority of games or even where the rubies come from. Ok, great for you and who gives a damn about the rubies on a character over level 15 and projected wealth at those levels. However if something is possible, and simulacrum abuse is 100% possible and as is wish abuse or the combination of both, it's a good suggestion to show an easy solution to avoid that abuse. Now it's up to WOTC to decide if they want to bother implementing the solution presented or if they want to leave it in the hands of the DM's. Contradicting the suggested errata is counter-productive. Give suggestions instead and stop derailing the thread.
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Yes, I think #4 would work.
Though apart from the clone army, I still don't like evading the wish restrictions.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
I think someone should probably point out that simulacrum is exclusive to the wizard spell list, so this talk of sorcerers ever casting it is a bit off target. It would have to be two wizards, or a wizard and a bard that picked up simulacrum with magical secrets.
Not that such distinction really changes the point... but I feel it is important to be accurate, so as to not appear to be working on assumption rather than actual knowledge.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
The Alert feat reads:
PHB page 165 wrote:
mellored wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
It seems obvious to me the intention was a duplicate cant cast simulacrum on itself. If a DM wants to rule otherwise, despite the obvious ramifications, best of luck!
Greetings All!
I want to thank you for the huge smile I am leaving work with today.
I spent most of my afternoon at work, not working, but being caught-up in reading the ongoing dialogue regarding the "simulacrum army"...
I don't think I've laughed out-loud so much in aeons, what a crack-up.
Thanks Again!
New one... clearly a mis-written, but, definatly broken.
Temperate: The bearer suffers no harm in temperatures as cold as -20 degrees Fahrenheit or as warm as 120 degrees Fahrenheit
vs
Suggetsion.
Temperate: The bearer suffers no harm from temperatures as cold as -20 degrees Fahrenheit or as warm as 120 degrees Fahrenheit
mellored wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Can I request an improvement to Mord's sword? It seems strictly worse than flaming sphere (granted, unless you need force damage).
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'd say bonus action to cast, +spell casting mod to damage, and some cool effect on a crit. Like, the target is banished to a demiplane for the duration (as in the banishment spell). Or the target is encapulated by an Otiluke's resiliant sphere for the duration.
Or bump the duration to an hour?
But any number of improvements would work.
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I like it. Might say 8 hours is enough though, don't want to keep the wizards up all night...
jaelis wrote:
This thought just occured to me regarding the "army of simulacra" issue: is it not inherently self limiting? Given that any simulacrum only obeys the spoken, verbal commands of its creator.
From the PHB:
"It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat."
Since only one of the army of simulacra was created by you, only one of them will take direction from you. Commanding your army of simulacra would require a tedious, unmanageable chain of "tell your simulacra to tell his simulacra to tell his simulacra....." Also, if any simulacra were destroyed, all of its heirs become incapable of receiving further instruction.
Since the text is so explicit in specifying that it will only take direction form you, is it not a reasonable ruling that you could not simply command it to listen to someone else?
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
if the simulacrum does not get the steak for the customer, he is not following your orders.
your welcome to limit abuse, that's kinda why i started this thread.
mellored wrote:
I really don't understand that logic.
If I tell the sim to stand on his head, he has to stand on his head.
If I tell the sim to attack Joe, he has to attack Joe.
If I tell the sim to do what Joe says, he has to do what Joe says.
But I accept that the logic works for you, and there's no reason to argue about it. It seems most people agree that a DM shouldn't let the clone army happen. Making that a little more explicit in the spell can't hurt then.
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
orethallon isn't going to change his mind, so let's just drop it.
if there are any other options that seem out of line, plz post them.
Well, lightning arrow is I think ambiguous as to whether the second parcel of damage should apply to the initial target or not 
And frankly I still think it is BS that a trident is the same as a spear, but I guess that was not by accident...
FarBeyondC wrote:
mellored wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Oh, I see, that makes sense.
Jamwes wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Sorcerer: Spell slots created using Font of Magic last until the end of a long rest. (Or some other time limit; according to current RAW, they are permanent.)
It's been months since first realized how busted simulacrum is...But it is a little funny how a lot of people still simply cannot understand how the combo works.
Nobody thinks the spell is not broken as written, and there is tons and tons of house rules about it.
Even if you limited a simulacrum to only having 1 copy of yourself period, it still does not stop you casting it on yourself with your 7th level slot, then having it cast wish to give your party permanent resistance, then casting simulacrum again with your 8th level slot(which destroys the spent copy), then having it use Wish to give your party permanent resistance to another element. So, 2 free wishes per day that don't take you out of combat. That also happens to generate 47,000gp in profit per day once your party has resistance to everything and immunity to whichever harmful spells You could technically have your simulacrum wish for you to be immune to the stress of casting the wish spell, which would permanently bypass the drawbacks for your character...since it can explicitly grant immunity to a magical effect created by a spell, seems legit. So add in Wish #3 per day. None of the effects are dispellable, because the spell is instantaneous.
Join with me now.....Everyone bitch at WotC until they release errata for their buggy product.
Another spell I think probably needs to be fixed is Slow. It's such a flavorful spell, and also iconic.
Why does it say a creature that fails its save is affected for the duration, Then contradicts itself and says they get another save next round to end the spell. It is worded differently than all the other save-or-suck spells. It seems like they meant for it to be 1 save, but during editing it got the 'save every round' tacked on at the end by a temp that didn't know the proper syntax to use.
Seems pretty fair if it was an initial save, and then a last chance save on the following round, and thats it. It is already a fairly soft Crowd Control spell compared to Hypnotic Pattern, or Hold person.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Demong wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
I realize you like to accuse people that use adjectives of being hyperbolic, but DnD is a product, and it has a lot of bugs.
A spell being high level is not an excuse for it being able to create infinite combos. The fact that a small % of games will use it is a red herring in the argument. Because 100% of the games where it does become an issue have to look at it and figure out a house rule to stop the planet from being overrun. Thats kinda like saying gay people don't deserve equal rights cuz they are only 5% of the population. There arent that many of them, why bother fixing the bad laws?
Contagion is a much lower level spell, available in tier 2. It defies the general way spells function and circumvents legendary resistance. I call that broken. It is a crack in the windshield. Can i still drive my car with a crack in the windshield? Yes. But put enough cracks in a windshield and it will eventually be ruined.
Do i still like 5e? Yes, a lot. Is 5e a lot less buggy than 4e? Yes. Do i still want them to release some common sense errata? Yes. Especially because i like the edition a lot.
Discussing the things we think are broken is one of the methods we use to make our voices heard.
I don't know if this has been covered but there are plenty of us who have read contagion since the players handbook first came out as requiring 3 saves before any disease effects were produced.
Byakugan01 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
"Wow, congrats on your "Worst Analogy Ever" award."
if it was a bad analogy, why was your very next point an attempt to assert your guess of a number being correct? I never made a guess as to how many games it would come up in, because it doesn't matter. Every game that it does come come up in will have to make a house rule.
I think it is entirely conceivable for a character to look at that spell and go 'wow i really like this spell and want to build a character around this theme.' Then they make a character at level 1 and then work their way to 9th level and prepare contagion. Then they finally cast the spell and DM goes 'well sorry im making a house rule so it dont work the way its written'.
Or much easier issues where the casters wanted to combo it with with a monks stun, or a fellow wizards disintegrate, whatever. Oh well i guess ill make a new character.
Most of my gaming groups have always really hated on the spot house rules. The campaigns had specific lists of house rules that were up front what was changed at the beginning of the campaign. I think AL should be doing the same thing. If they don't have a say in errata, then they should print their own 'fixes' and apply them evenly to everyone. Who decided aurokocra are banned? Call that guy and ask him to add a few more bans and/or clarifications.
Subjective, but "buggy" carries the implication "lots of bugs". I don't think it's accurate to call 5e buggy.
BZA wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I think you can absolutely compare bugs in computer games to bugs in DnD.
The location of the bugs does not change the fact that they are bugs...since people are disecting words to try and prove their points, lets go with this definition of -bug-
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
This is a semantic argument. Your arguing over connotation of a word.
We all agree there are a few issues, but overall it's a rather functional game.
Has anyone heard anything at all about when WotC is planning/working/hoping to release their first batch of errata? Or if they are planning to at all?
Byakugan01 wrote:
Crawford has mentioned a couple of times "before Spring"..... IIRC they will be doing PHB first. But the Errata is meant for mistakes, not really clarifying issues. OTOH, depending on the mistakes, they may clarify things.
There will also be his Sage Advice column, which may clarify things.
I stopped reading the list of "errata" the OP proposed when he came up with -3 to hit for +6 damage, which is exactly the same formula as 3e's power attack -1 penalty for +2 damage that the current GWM etc feats are already based on !! (-3 / +6 -> -5 / +10). At least propose something that has a chance of being implemented, dude. Sigh.
Until then, you should consider them your own special house rules, and nothing more.
Also you failed to notice one of the biggest offenders of 5th edition : 1st level fighters can self-heal all day long without spending a single hit dice, through spamming Second Wind. It's really hard to take some of the armchair game design stuff I've seen on this site seriously when it doesn't even acknowledge such low hanging fruit. You merely have to play D&D for a few sessions to see how proficient players of fighters can often end up at the end of the day without having spent a single hit dice. Why spend a non-renewable daily resource when you can spend one that renews every hour and achieves the exact same thing? This makes no sense. I've seen fighters beg the party to keep going on long past the cleric is out of cure wounds (several encounters later, in fact, which is a first in D&D's history, at least for low-level groups), and are more durable than both paladins and barbarians too. Totally unbalanced, and broken. Fighters regenerating without magic or limits is anathema to the spirit of D&D, or even basic common sense. Why can a fighter fight all day long without getting healz when a barbarian or a paladin (who actually is known for having magical healing specifically tailored for that end) can't? Zero sense. This is totally absurd.
Sorry for being blunt OP, good night and good luck.
I stopped reading the list of "errata" the OP proposed when he came up with -3 to hit for +6 damage, which is exactly the same formula as 3e's power attack -1 penalty for +2 damage that the current GWM etc feats are already based on !! (-3 / +6 -> -5 / +10).
Also, a Short Rest is *at least* an hour, not 'every hour'. If a party stops for 3 hours, that is just 1 short rest, not 3.
My PCs are rarely in a situation where it is possible to take as many 1 hour breaks as I feel like....
IOW, while I undertand there is the 'potential' for abuse, I have not seen it actually work out that way. YMMV of course....
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
jaelis wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
The fix is that the DM doesn't allow that many short rests. By employing wandering monsters, for example.
jonathonhawke wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
{quote="DaomSlayer"]Playing your first level fighter PC as written in the basic D&D rules is not "cheesy", it's fair game.[/quote]Taking 16 short rests in a day is NOT playing by the rules as written.
Again, it's 2 short rests per long rest.
Broken exploits do not cease being broken simply because DMs can un-break them.
DaomSlayer wrote:
This made me ask myself why I think the simulacrum abuse should be fixed but second wind is OK. I think it is because abusing second wind really requires some DM complicity. Sure a DM could spam random encounters, but more commonly the DM just needs to have some kind of time pressure for the party. I think most adventures have some form of that. As soon as you do, the possibility for abuse pretty much goes away.
In comparison, the sim abuse is more in the hands of the players. To prevent it, the DM has to basically have no downtime at all, which is a more intrusive constraint. You might say it requires campaign-level time pressure, as opposed to adventure level time pressure. Some campaign probably have that, but I don't think it is the norm.
I also think the 2nd wind abuse is less significant. It only helps the fighters, not the rest of the party, and the benefit they get is a lot less powerful than piles of wishes or the like. So the lengths a player would be willing to go to for it should be lower.
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Yeah, good point. Our group is usually pretty well recovered after a short rest anyway, though we might spend a spell or two achieving doing that.
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
mellored wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
There's nothing inherently unbalanced about having 2 short rests per long rest. You need a balance point, otherwise you wouldn't be able to have daily and short rest abilities. They chose 2.
(personally i would of liked 3 or 4, but meh...)
And, following the rules, there's no issues with second wind.
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Mello, I think his argument is that the DM doesn't have the necessary tools to enforce 2 short rests per day, in the sense that there no rule "You can only benefit from two short rests in one 24 hour period."
I don't think that is a very good argument, but I guess your response isn't really addressing it...
jaelis wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
What does the rest of the party do when they are beat up and have no spells? Obviously they watch the fighter's horse while he solos the dungeon?
Did you know that allowing the fighter infinite time to rest is the same thing as allowing everyone in the party infinite time to rest.
Forget that...the fighter alters the fabric of time around himself so that he can take an extra action once an hour...that means he can craft stuff faster than anyone else! That is totally broken.
The really messed up thing is that the level 1 fighters that retire at level 1 and spend all his time doing nothing but 1 push-up per hour heal more than any PCs in the world. So broken!
jonathonhawke wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Let me ask those who think the problem is players being cheesy for playing their fighters as written :
If second wind is not intended to be spammed for self-healz, and you are not using it this way, what possible objection could you have for objecting to it being limited to prevent that? It shouldn't affect you, right? RIGHT?
Changing SW back to Temp HP shouldn't affect anyone who claims to not be spamming short rests to heal back to full in between each battle.
But of course that's not what's happening, or why people are so dead set on adding a limit, because it is being exploited, and people like exploiting it, and that's why they want it to remain as a free self-heal. I can see right through this fog of deception and disingenuous arguments.
Changing it to Temp HP was actually proposed by Mearls as a fix to the 5 minute short rest variant rule setting. Not sure why it would affect anyone else (who claim to not be abusing it), to having it that way for all short rest timers. It would otherwise give the exact same HP benefit for combat use. Unless, of course, they are lying.
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
For starters, there is no such thing as -actual- hitpoints....that number is an abstraction...That a fighter, which is supposed to be the toughest most enduring character archtype can actually endure more punishment than others is not a bug. It is a feature.
What kind of party are all these fighters in that have no mages or druids or clerics that have buff timers running, or on a constant tract where there are no time constraints on resting.
Our party has 1 fighter, and he nornally uses his second wind before we rest...That way he has it available if a fight gets hairy. He only gets to use it about 3 times a day tops...because thats all the rests we get. Because that is how organized play is supposed to function.
A wizard could encase the whole planet inside a million castings of wall of stone if you gave him infinite time. Sounds broken right?...HOW is such a thing possible?! Golly, I guess the DM should have interdicted when the wizard hit 9th level and said 'I encase the planet in walls of stone, 1 spell slot at a time'...Then the DM says you can only cast that once a day...and the PC says 'Then I spent 1 million days resting and casting it once per day!' and the GM goes dang, I guess you win DND! Everybody roll new characters for a different world cuz this one is covered in stonez!
It is like you are trying to say warriors can calculate the TRUE value of pi cuz SW makes them God and that makes the whole party God by extension...
Incidently, I played a game a long time ago that had a particular religious cult in it....Their mission was guarding a cathedral containing a Decanter of Endless Water that was set on geyser mode and aimed into a magically affixed Well of Many Worlds....They were trying to find out how long it would take to fill an entire alternate plane with water. Or if the plane of water itself would run out first..It had already been going for like 200 years when we discovered them...and we decided to leave the experiment running.
No idea if it was someone else's idea or if he made it up himself, but that was some memorable stuff!
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
I will step back now and let the designers who read this use their own judgment as to whose reasoning is sound and who is just arguing in bad faith.
You deny any knowledge that a surge-free SW ability in 4e would be broken, only proving how little you understand about game balance. No, actually I think you do understand it, but you are arguing in bad faith.
It's pretty clear that anyone arguing that first level fighters should be allowed to have 176 HP of free healing per day on tap, has either no clue about class balance, or is arguing in bad faith. Because it's absurd to say a surge-free SW is a balanced ability. In 4e, even making SW a minor action for dwarves made it a very potent ability. As was the ranger power that let them do it as part of a move. Now imagine a fighter got SW with no surge cost. It's totally ludicrous that I even have to explain this. But apparently I do.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Oddly, when I go to the index and look up Bonus Action (which SW is), it refers to the Combat chapter. Does it say anywhere in the book that Second Wind can be used outside of combat?
mellored wrote:
It's usually quite easy to rest 2 hours instead of 1.
176 is simply the max, even getting 30-40 more HP total per day than any other class affects class balance a lot at tier 1.
You're free to disagree, of course, but I find that 1st level fighters starting every fight at 100% full HP to be a huge incentive to dip 1 level of fighter. That's a clear sign of an OP / broken ability.This pressure to MC Fighter 1 rises as you add more non-fighters in the group, since the likelihood of short resting more often and longer increases proportionally.
When Mearls calls using Second Wind as written cheesy, and people do not think the problem is with the rule itself rather than players playing by the rules, I don't know what to say. If he truly believes this, it's lazy. If you can break the game by resting 2 hours instead of 1, the fault lies with the game designers, not with the players playing the game as written.
Resting 2 hours instead of 1 is NOT cheesy player OR character behavior, Mike. Don't pass the buck. You messed up.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'm just confused by the seeming fact that, for someone who professes to have such a strong love of 5e, s/he sure does reference 4e a heck of a lot.
Orethalion wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
User Error.
If the fighter is getting all the shot rests he wants...
DM fail. And that's, you guessed it, User Error.
Play the game. Stop letting the game play you.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
So what isn't too short an interval. Ten minutes? Twenty? Thirty? What.
Where exactly is your cutoff for when 5th edition's second wind becomes broken, as it is currently written, in your eyes.
When you can answer that exactly, is when you'll realize the exact interval of the short rest isn't the problem, it's that the player can trigger it whenever they want. Repeatedly. As it makes most sense to do so.
Let's say you have a battle and get banged up. And your party decides to find a safe place to rest up a bit. So, an hour later. Everyone's got their stuff back, and the fighter used his SW but is deciding whether to use one HD to top off some remaining HP. Shouldn't he just say, hey guys, can we rest just one more hour? That way I can fight longer.
Is it unreasonable to ask to rest a little longer, either in character or out? I submit that no, it's not unreasonable PC behavior AT ALL. It's perfectly rational, both as a player and a character, to avoid using daily healing resources (HD) when you can use renewable short-rest resources (SW).
I mean, you're so close to understanding the actual reason this is a bug, but ..can't...quite...take...the...last...step...into...understanding....it.
Temp HP that erases after 5 minutes IS already a (mostly) combat-useful only ability. That's why Mearls suggested using it at 5 minute short rest tables. If it's supposed to be a combat ability, make it Temp HP already! It it's supposed to be equivalent to troll regeneration, then call it
Regen : You gain 1d10 + lvl HP / hour when you are not doing strenuous activity.
Be honest about what the power does and how it functions. It bypasses hit dice completely, which is EXACTLY the same thing as a surge-free second wind would be in 4e.
If your argument is that you never ran out of surges in 4e, that's different, because people do run out of HD in 5e, by spending them after a short rest to heal. They go fast. Not sure why one class should get free healz that don't depend on the system-wide pacing mechanic they came up. It's a kludgy hack that doesn't even merge well within the context of the fighters own hit dice pools. Pure fail. Why not just give fighters a bonus to their hit dice value? Or an extra hit dice at certain levels? That would have been MUCH more elegant and fair. Instead, they let them completely bypass the entire hit dice pacing system.
DaomSlayer wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Quick maths. Assumptions: Average roll values have been rounded down; HP counted based on the suggested fixed value of a Fighter's Hit Die (6); Over the course of its adventuring career, the PC will raise its CON from 16 to 20 (not unexpected in normal play); No feats. Please correct me if I get anything wrong. I'm not that big on maths.
Level 1 Fighter
CON: 16
HP: 13
Average roll on SW: 6
Rests required to recover from 1 to full HP: 2
Level 5 Fighter
CON: 16
HP: 49
Average roll on SW: 11
Rests required to recover from 1 to full HP: 4.36 (or 5)
Level 10 Fighter
CON: 18
HP: 104
Average roll on SW: 15
Rests required to recover from 1 to full HP: 6.87 (or 7)
Level 15 Fighter
CON: 20
HP: 168
Average roll on SW: 20
Rests required to recover from 1 to full HP: 8.35 (or 9)
Level 20 Fighter
CON: 20
HP: 212
Average roll on SW: 25
Rests required to recover from 1 to full HP: 8.48 (or 9)
From this, I come to two conclusions:
1. Second Wind's scaling is strange, for want of a better word. The more levels you gain, the more rests you need to recover your HP, which is to be expected, because HP scales faster than SW. Except a level 15 Fighter and another at level 20 -- both with 20 CON -- take as long to recover to full HP from 1. Not too sure why that is (maybe it's because of the increase in CON?), but it's more of a comment on how SW scales alongside HP.
2. This is the point of the argument. While it is true that a level 1 Fighter could reasonably heal to full HP in 2 hours, this so-called problem "corrects" itself as the Fighter gains levels. Somewhere around level 10, you'd might as well take an 8-hour long rest instead of 7 short rests. An argument could be made that consecutive shorts rests are already sub-optimal at level 5. Past level 10, the "bug/exploit" takes as much time as -- if not more than -- taking a long rest, which provides more benefits than 8 or 9 consecutive shorts rests (such as regaining daily resources, for example).
Taking adventure design out of the equation and looking strictly at numbers, the apparent "abuse" quickly becomes a poor strategy to adopt, and it only becomes a worse idea over time. As far as I'm concerned, making a big deal out of it is making mountains out of molehills.
The only complaint I can formulate from my calculations is that SW scales poorly. Then again, IIRC, most healing options suffer from the same or similar issues, so maybe SW is indeed in line with other healing methods.
DaomSlayer wrote:
3x per day, or temp HP (disappears after 5 minutes) or change it to an involuntary reaction to dropping below 50% HP.
Any of those things totally prevents abuse or any issues with ANY short rest period.
That's the PROPER way to fix bugs. You correctly identify the actual issue (the fact that it's got no restrictions against multiple or virtually unlimited re-use in succession to bring you back to 100% HP after each fight), and you remove the ability to do that.
Done.
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
jaelis wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
You guys do realize that DaomSlayer conceded already, right? My response to him destroyed his arguments and he refused to reply not once, but twice to it. That's a concession.
I did read your response, and didn't see anything of merit that is even slightly pertinent.
More of the usual "if players don't use their abilities fully, the game rule somehow isn't broken" nonsense. It's kind of shameful that you even think your reply is worth responding to.
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
I believe it speaks for the robustness of the basic rules that such a perceived problem as Second Wind can find such an easy solution with several options. For me, variety is the spice of life and I would not welcome an official change which narrowed the options.
Now, to open a can of worms:
Whereas the Second Wind “problem” has been described quite clearly as a “corner” case for low level tier, I propose that the Simulacrum “problem” is likewise a “corner” case for high level tier. There is an implication that magic has limits, thus the spell levels which end at 9. There is precedence from “the mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast,” the 9th level wish spell, that no greater spell effect can naturally be conjured with it: it only replicates one use of any spell of 8th level or below. Therefore, how is it possible, through the implied “laws of magic” from “the mightiest spell” that a mere 7th level spell, simulacrum, is suddenly expected to not only allow repeated (ab)uses to create an army of simulacra, but that it also can somehow replicate the wish spell itself?! To me, it seems clear that the simulacrum spell is intended to create only ever ONE copy of the original! Trying to get around that limit should, at best, invoke a similar dangerous territory to tread as the wish spell, where casting it to achieve anything other than to duplicate an 8th or lower level spell causes “stress” which “weakens you” and provides unavoidable damage, when attempting to cast any other spell (which scales with spell level!) without first taking a long rest (which would probably best be served here by the option of a week’s duration!).
The numbers speak for themselves:
7 < 9
9 =/= 7+7+7+…
I believe this is the proper level of abstraction to solve the proposed dilemma!
-DS
mellored wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
The second coming is just as bad as the first.
Anyway, how about those manuals/tomes?
Specifically, these manuals/tomes:
- Manual of Bodily Health (Constitution)
- Manual of Gainful Exercise (Strength)
- Manual of Quickness of Action (Dexterity)
- Tome of Clear Thought (Intelligence)
- Tome of Leadership and Influence (Charisma)
- Tome of Understanding (Wisdom)
Sure, after using one of the books, no one can benefit from its contents for a century (well, aside from any mundane benefit conferred by following the advice and guidelines within). Still, I'm not sure I like the idea that one can, theoretically, eventually have better stats than legendary creatures or divine beings simply by reading a book and practicing what lay within.
Maybe the real issue is the idea that you can spam short rests. If the party can't take another short rest (without it counting as part of the same rest) until after engaging in the type of activity that would interrupt a long rest, would that resolve the SW issue?
DaomSlayer wrote:
Jenks wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
you still are avoiding answering my question.
how long should it take for a fighter to regain all his hit points?
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
then you have your answer, short rest is 1 day. long rest is 1 week. it will take the fighter a few days to heal.
as for encounter surge free heals in 4e, vampires can already do that, go ask if they are broken.
giving it to the fighter would be a bit OP, but the fighter is already a bit OP in 4e. still not broken, since you heal up after every battle anyways, so it would only allow for longer days. at least untill you found other uses for your surges.
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
you should have to use optional rules if you are playing differently then the default assumptions.
and having every battle be hours apart is different then the default assumptions. which is only having 2 hours of rest per day.
DaomSlayer wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
You know, at some point I think people just have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure there are any new arguments to be made on the question, and I'm pretty sure no one involved is going to change their mind...
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Yeah. 5e is so ridiculously broken. I gave the party a bunch of legendary magic items and artifacts as treasure after their first run-in involving a lone kobold. Now they are running roughshod over every little encounter in their 1st-level dungeon. Stoopid game.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Aaron: Yeah, that's what we've mostly been doing with the group as a whole (pretty much everybody at the table has weighed in on this). We've discussed about its capabilities and usefulness a number of times, but we usually come to the same conclusion: the spell gives enough information to suggest that there is more to it than what is described, but not enough to know what the limits are. We all want to see it used in fun ways, but nobody (not even the Bard in question) wants it to become too good or potentially abusive.
IMO, removing the references to Strength, AC, and HP would go a long way to clarify its intended usage. Something like: "It can't attack. It can lift 30 lbs. Any attack against it succeeds and it fails every saving throw. A successful attack against it or it failing a saving throw instantly destroys the Unseen Servant, even if the attack does not deal damage." It doesn't cover every base, but it might be clearer in its intent.
Regarding tripping: It wasn't the Trip action, but rather a "kneel here" command. The pursuer, not expecting an invisible obstacle directly in front of him, fell over upon hitting it. Although the servant promptly disappeared as the Bard got out of range (60'). Still, it bought the party a lot of time.
Shirebrok wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
I understand your issue, I just started playing a wizard and took US. I want to try and use it in creative ways, but don't want to create a broken 1st level spell.
One of the mitigating factors is it can only move 15' per round, so it can be hard to position. But I also thought of using it as an obstacle for someone to trip over... seems like it should work. Maybe give them a dex save to avoid falling....
Coredump00 wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Some of the most serious bugs from 4th edition didn't get fixed until very late into the game. Eventually they will be forced to come to terms with the fact that they should have kept it as Temp HP as it should have been from the start.
If you're not abusing the ability to regenerate out of combat, there is no reason to be against it becoming temp hp anyway. You can use it right before combat starts (or right after) and use it as a damage shield instead of healing after the fact. Same difference. Except temp hp would prevent it being spammable, and remove the underlying incentive to short rest more than once in a row. (since temps disappear after 5 minutes).
The recommended fix when short rest are 5 minutes elegantly fixes the brokenness of the ability for any short rest period, including the default one hour. If the ability IS intended to give regeneration, why not let people with 5 minute short rests at their table have their fighters regen to 100% HP after every fight? There's the contradiction. They are implicitly acknowledging it is not supposed to give regen (by telling people to change it to temps for 5 min short rest tables), then admitting that it does by suggesting that very fix.
RAI != RAW.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
A short rest is any time you don't undertake any strenuous activity for a period of at least one hour uninterrupted. That's what the actual rules state.
The "suggestion" to limit every 24 hour period to only have max two such hour periods is totally absurd, arbitrary, and of no consequence. Null and void.
Actually, it's explicitly metagame. Very ironic that people here misuse the term metagame, without properly understanding it, then turn around and suggest the DM metagames players out of their abilities working as they are written, through railroading the group into always being harrangued by monsters any time they take a breather for more than an hour at a time. That kind of game gets old, fast. Nobody likes being railroaded into playing the game a certain way.
I actually think it's metagamey for players of fighters to NOT rest up until they are back to full HP. Would you go dungeon delving while severely injured? Or even jogging? Or even going to work? No, you rest up until you are healed. Unless you have no choice.
The default reasonable player behavior for those who have regeneration is simply to wait as long as they can manage to heal up before going into the next fight. It's irrational to do otherwise, both as a player and in-character. (unless there is time pressure, which as I wrote before, cannot and should not be the goto answer for every rules problem).
Put it this way, for everyone who's ever complained about the 5mwd, this is the 30 second work hour. It actually aggravates that problem. And the "proposed" solutions don't really work when on an hour-by-hour basis anyway. Players would see right through it. The DM would eventually just ban SW or nerf it. But really, this is a rules bug that shouldn't be given workarounds or brush offs. It should be fixed. I.e. changed back to temp HP. As it always should have been.
This all stinks, my group used to have fun playing dnd but now since we read this thread, all anyone wants to do is rest. And it's all because of the fighter player he says he'll attack anyone who disagrees with him, and he has so many hit point they are all scared.
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Oh, I know.
So about that Unseen Servant. One of my favorite uses is, after approaching some dark chamber where creatures might be hiding in the shadows, to instruct it to carry around a lit candle ahead of the party and see if anything attacks it. It isn't always the best approach, but sometimes it can get less intelligent, aggressive, and/or naturally curious creatures to reveal themselves.
DaomSlayer wrote:
sandvirm wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
Honestly DS, I get what you are saying. It does constrain your game somehow to deal with this. But I really truly don't understand why you're so focused on second wind. There are a bunch of short rest refreshing abilities that seem equally significant to me... warlocks, monks and channel divinity come immediately to mind, Can you explain why you think second wind is the only one that is actually problematic? Like, assume I genuniely agree that SW is a problem, so you don't need to convince me. Just convince me why if second wind were fixed, these other abilities would not be problems.
Because I think that is a main objection that people are trying to express. Not that you're fundamentally wrong about what you're saying, just that we all feel what you're talking about is intrinsic to the game in many places, and that changing second wind alone would hardly have any impact. You are really consistently refusing to address this issue, no matter how it is presented.
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
I'm not sure if this was mentioned upthread, but I saw this the other day:
Yes, we know.
What were you guys saying about "appeal to authority" being an invalid argument again?
Since errata are for incomplete rules, SW missing the word "temporary" in front of "hit points" qualifies, since granting regeneration to fighters couldn't have been their intention. SW is not spammable in 4th ed, not sure why it should be in 5th.
If it's his opinion that this product is fault-free barring some minor cosmetic or phrasing issues, then he's entitled to it. Doesn't make it true. Or that errata aren't necessary in many places. I am highly dubious that you can even correct unbalanced things by offering newer, better balanced things, alongside the originals, instead of a revision to nerf or boost the original. Pretty sure that won't work.
They should at least publish an official variant rule for SW for those of us old schoolers who don't actually want regenerating fighters in our game. If temp HP is in a side bar, instead of buried in one of Mearls' tweets, then we can at least make some progress at standardizing the fixes for this ability. Some of them, like the ones presented at Enworld, aren't very good / elegant at all.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Pretty sure you don't understand what "appeal to authority" means or why it's invalid. Can the pope be wrong about condom use? Even though he's supposedly infallible? Referring to his opinion about what's true or not is about as valid as saying Crawford is an infallible expert and that 5th edition D&D is perfect as is, barring minor grammatical errors.
The devs saying something is true doesn't make it true.
Yes, I understand he's not going to errata SW (right now), I do live in this place called reality. You can brag all you want, but they knew SW had problems for a lot of players all through the playtests. They made a decision, fine. If you're asserting his opinion is correct, by virtue his job title alone, then you are making an appeal to authority. It's not like he actually explained himself. Accepting his reasoning based on a single line on a tweet is about as specious as you can get.
If the question under consideration is "What are the authorities going to do about X?" then appeal to authority is not a fallacy.
You're welcome to maintain your opinion about it, Crawford's opinions don't make yours wrong. They just make yours irrelevant.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Wait! So does that mean the devs aren't going to change it now, after all?
Dangit! Thanks for getting my hopes up, Daom! Then crushing them.
Thanks for nothin'.
Guess fighters are just perma-banned in my games then. 'Nuff said.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
IF the problem is SW being spammed across multiple short rests by Fighters, what about CW being spammed across multiple short rests by Warlock/Clerics? That would remove the requirement for anyone in the party to spend Hit Dice.
I think the real problem is the ability to spam short rests.
mellored wrote:
I dont get the difference between a fighter resting 8 times in a row and a whole party taking a long rest to get 100% of their resources back after every single fight.
If you allow them to have infinite time after every fight, then your logic dictates they are all mentally retarded if they dont rest to full resources after every single fight.
You're completely ignoring the part where the DM is supposed to smack the players upside the head when they try to be cheesy.
You rest for an hour, no problem...you rest for anoth...sorry 59 minutes later an ant crawls into your armor and bites you, sorry you jumped up and itched really bad so you couldnt rest...you rest again...59 minutes later, dang the ants are really bad in this area! Repeat until darkness falls and the random encounter chart goes to every 15 minutes and the ants get a lot bigger... See how this works?
DarkSphinx wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
My perspective on this is that errata should mostly be there for casual players. Anyone involved in this discussion knows about the problem and has all kinds of ways to deal with it. But say you're just a caual DM running a campaign with your friends. There's no reason you would even have considered this issue, you might not even be aware of the spell. But when your player gets to a level where he has access to it, I feel like the clone army idea is not a far fetched thing to consider. Suddenly the DM is faced with this complicated thing that needs to be solved. So yes, for it to actually happen for real in a game would take some level of DM complicity. But the potential for abuse is something I could easily see a DM being surprised by. That's the kind of thing that I think ought to be fixed: non-obvious things that don't really work right and take some special effort to deal with.
(Compared to short rest abuse, where first the issue is more obvious and second there are explicit guidelines about dealing with it. Or even compare to Mord's Sword, where it's not so obviously a terrible spell until you actually compare it to a high level flaming sphere.)
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mordenkainen's sword is a spell that suffers from being placed in it's traditional spot as a high level spell, and from attempts to make sure that its entire potential effect - an attack every round for up to 10 rounds - does not end up being overpowered.
If it weren't such a high-level spell, expectations for its performance wouldn't be quite so high as they are, and it would likely seem just fine to most of the folks that find its current version lacking even if it were to experience a decrease in damage while being moved to a lower level.
As is, though, mordenkainen's sword matches the DMG's spell creating guidelines for a 7th level single-target spell that does no damage on a miss if it can be assumed that concentration is maintained on the spell for 4 to 5 rounds - though I personally feel that the issues with the spell are likely most simply solved by treating the spell as a conjuration rather than an evocation so that at least then the specialty you would most expect it from would be able to more easily avoid losing concentration on the spell and it thus end before it has earned it's keep as a 7th level spell.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
As is, though, mordenkainen's sword matches the DMG's spell creating guidelines for a 7th level single-target spell that does no damage on a miss if it can be assumed that concentration is maintained on the spell for 4 to 5 rounds
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
Oh, thank the gods we've moved on to something new. Something fresh for discussion, like simulacrum...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Just saying, the plural is beside the point... no one needs to cast the spell more than once for the clone army to work.
jaelis wrote:
I don't disagree, but the obvious way a DM will prevent it is to just say sims can't cast the spell themselves. (As opposed to fussing about rubies or something.) So make an errata that puts that in the game, that way you save some confusion and stress and get to the same result.
Though I maintain that even the totally straight use of sim on a spell caster deserves errata, it is just too good if the sim can cast high level spells for you. It's still a great spell if the sim is limited to casting levels 6 and below. (It can concentrate for you too!)
Orethalion wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Ore, its a game, not a real world. The DM isn't going to roleplay all those past wizards to figure out what they did with the spell. Like I said, it won't even be on most DM's radar until an enterprising player comes up with the idea. And then the DM will probably say no, that's dumb, I just won't let you do it. Then the player will be annoyed since what he's doing seems legal, a good DM will talk to him about why its broken, a bad DM will say 'fine, all the rubies in the world just disappeared.' There are other solutions as we've discussed. But none of them are fun or good for the game. Just fix the spell.
wish doesn't need rubies. that's part of the problem.
I think errata for every little thing that could be a problem is a bad way to go. Errata should be saved for the most egregious errors, which similacrum doesn't qualify for in my opinion.
mellored wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
malliable illusion + simulacrum might be an issue, but it's difficult to read....
suggestions on how to fix it?
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
DS, I can't really follow your logic. All I'm doing here is using wish to duplicate a 7th level spell. That is plainly and simply allowed, there is no chance for wish weakness. If you don't think wish can be used that way, then you aren't playing wish as written. That's cool, but the point of talking about errata is to adjust the rules so they work better as written.
You also seem to be reading simulacrum a lot differently than I would.
I'm saying transferring is one option.
Sharing is also an option.
Duplication is another option.
The DM has many options! (and so does a character using a wish spell!)
I prefer the options to not be taken away by official errata.
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
quoting myself from post #491:
Incedently, previous editions of simulacrum could bestow only 20-50% (AD&D) or one half (3.5) the levels of the original, so a DM may want to adjust spell slots accordingly, although with the current version not allowing spell slots to be regained, that limit bears DM consideration (i.e., DM could allow any portion, including all, of the spell slots and not defy the RAW).
DarkSphinx wrote:
jaelis wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
jaelis wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
Added savage attacker, which should also give +1 Str.
+1 STR or +1 DEX?
Heck, why not throw in +1 WIS as an option for those Shillelagh users?
Or, +1 CHA for those Warlocks who snagged Shillelagh through the Pact of the Tome.
Or, +1 INT for ... uh....
Or, +1 CON for ... well ....
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Question: What if Simulacrum was a 9th level spell instead of a 7th level spell?
FarBeyondC wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I would consider it fair for a 9th level spell, especially with a shorter casting time and lower costs. I'd still want a restriction that you can't make a sim of a sim though.
Anyway, can you even cast the spell in temperate weather?
jaelis wrote:
I suppose it's a good application for cone of cold.
I think the real question is what if you used pykrete?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
Hmm... when is a spell slot expended?
At the start of a spell, or at the end?
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
Just everyone get on the bandwagon and demand WotC headquarters errata simulacrum to function in a way that doesn't break the world.
A spell should not be so obviously wrong that it requires to DM to make up 10 other house rules to stop you from using the spell as written.
Why is hyperbole so common?
I mean, it's one messed up bit of rules and it takes one house-rule to fix - that's enough, there is not a benefit to trying to claim the issue is worse than it is.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Any other thoughts or comments?
(besides simularcum)
Polearm Master: The extra attack is considered an attack from a 2-handed Weapon. This would prevent abuse combined with Great Weapon Master.
Lilika wrote:
[quote="jaelis"]
Lilika wrote:
Did you mean to say the bonus attack should _not_ be considered as from a 2H weapon?
jaelis wrote:
Lilika wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
[quote="Lilika"]
jaelis wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Pact Blade: Can use Cha for melee attacks with the pact weapon.
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Right, you get more EBs than weapon attacks, that is a big difference. If it was 4*(2d6+cha+str) I guess it would be worth the MAD. Maybe just give them a 3rd attack.
jaelis wrote: