Would This Work, and if you were a DM, would it trigger you?

[Millface]

Starting with this: We don't enjoy triggering DMs, but I switch off a campaign at a time with a friend, and the rest of us were brainstorming our next characters and we came up with something pretty solid as a collaboration. I know it's not necessarily common for players to try to synergize as much as possible, but we enjoy it, and as DMs my buddy and I are usually up to snuff and enjoy the challenge.

There are five players, and here's the barebones idea for the "Twilight Cabal":

1. Celestial Patron, Pact of the Chain (imp) Warlock. The heals and moral backbone of the group. Devil's site is a must, EB turret when not healing, Elven Accuracy feat as soon as possible.

2. Hexblade Patron, Pact of the Blade Warlock. Melee damage, might eventually dip assassin. Devils site and all the requisite blade invocations of course.

3. Fiendish Patron, Pact of the Blade Warlock. This will be the tank, GWM + all the temp hitpoints from armor of agathys and the patron. This character is the brother of the celestial warlock, and both of their patrons encourage them to travel together to try to sway the other to the opposite side. Possible champion 3 dip for improved critical at later levels.

4. Hexblade Patron, Pact of the Blade Warlock/Gloom Stalker Ranger. Player likes the Gloom Stalker, and wants Hexblade for the curse and Devil's Site. Being both invisible in darkness even to creatures who can see in it AND being able to see in it was his idea.

5. This is the Trump card... Shadow Sorcerer. Lays down darkness that he can see in, only a couple of times per s/r at first, but nigh on infinite at higher levels. At first it's about his only priority, but later he'll be able to contribute this as well as normal caster goodies.

The idea here is to create a party where everyone can see in magical darkness, along with a catalyst for laying that down far more often than other classes would otherwise be able to. Elven Accuracy to taste, because 90% of the time the entire party will have advantage.

So, am I missing anything? Does this only work on paper? I know that people often suggest Devil's Sight + Darkness as a combo and it gets shot down because it's not practical, but in this party it doesn't get in anyone's way, and seems crazy powerful, while still giving the DM room to fight back (daylight, dispel the darkness, ambush, etc...) What do you guys think?

[Willie the Duck]

... about what?
You all took warlocks who can see through darkness. And thus you'll be casting darkness a lot. And winning right up until the DM decides (rightly so) that you would get a reputation for this and someone would hire a team specifically designed to exploit this over-specialization to come take you out. Campaign over, roll up new characters.

Was there an actual question, more specific than if we were a DM would it trigger (however you mean that) you?

[Argothair]

It sounds like fun, although you may as well check with the GM and see if he'll enjoy it, too. With a party of 4 warlocks and a sorcerer, you might have trouble getting hired or even finding a shop that will sell you rations...youre going to scare the crap out of local villagers, and not necessarily in a good way.

Love the "Good Omens" style rivalry between the Warlock brothers.

[MaxWilson]

Well... it would work in my game, but not the way you're expecting it to, because I already have a house rule on the subject:


5.) An attacker unseen by his target has advantage only on melee attack rolls, not ranged attack rolls; however, he does qualify for sneak attack damage at range despite not having advantage if he is unseen.


So you wouldn't benefit from Elven Accuracy as much as you're expecting unless you switch to melee cantrips like Greenflame Blade, but you WOULD have solid ranged attacks and solid defense against most things. Helmed Horrors would give you lots of trouble, and drow and goblins and black puddings and earth elementals and shadow demons probably would too in their various ways, but tactically you'd be solid-if-not-optimal. Watch out for dragons too, and anything else with blindsight and high mobility. Shadow dragons will be your worst nightmare because your preferred environment is also THEIR preferred environment, and they are better at it than you are.

There's some potential roleplaying tension there since you have five different PCs all (except the sorcerer) serving different masters, so I'd probably want to have a serious talk with the players first on whether they want the various patrons to actually be a part of the game as important NPCs. Basically, we'd need to settle the question pre-game of "Is a warlock more like a Sith Apprentice, who learns from his master but can betray him without repercussions? Or is he more like a pawn on a chessboard, powerless in himself unless his master moves him? Or something in between?" If it's anything but the Sith Apprentice option, it seems plausible that the group of five might not last long before it shatters into multiple groups with conflicting goals, unless we (DM and players) think up a good premise for binding them all together. The brothers thing is a good start but there's still going to be tension between them, and there's still two other patrons to account for.

[Millface]

... about what?
You all took warlocks who can see through darkness. And thus you'll be casting darkness a lot. And winning right up until the DM decides (rightly so) that you would get a reputation for this and someone would hire a team specifically designed to exploit this over-specialization to come take you out. Campaign over, roll up new characters.

Was there an actual question, more specific than if we were a DM would it trigger (however you mean that) you?

This is exactly what I meant, and what I was looking for!

Basically it's... "If you were GMing this would it annoy you or would you like the challenge, applaud the creativity"

If we aren't running around murdering villages why would someone assemble a team specifically to take us out? If a GM were to do that then to me, the answer is that it annoys them. If you enjoy the challenge then instead you'd just try to pepper encounters with dispel magic or daylight casters, or try to catch us by surprise. Make it harder for us to do what we're trying to do, not impossible.

[Millface]

There's some potential roleplaying tension there since you have five different PCs all (except the sorcerer) serving different masters, so I'd probably want to have a serious talk with the players first on whether they want the various patrons to actually be a part of the game as important NPCs. Basically, we'd need to settle the question pre-game of "Is a warlock more like a Sith Apprentice, who learns from his master but can betray him without repercussions? Or is he more like a pawn on a chessboard, powerless in himself unless his master moves him? Or something in between?" If it's anything but the Sith Apprentice option, it seems plausible that the group of five might not last long before it shatters into multiple groups with conflicting goals, unless we (DM and players) think up a good premise for binding them all together. The brothers thing is a good start but there's still going to be tension between them, and there's still two other patrons to account for.

I know that I, specifically, would absolutely love to DM the RP aspect of the proposed group, I think my friend would too. Every time I've had warlocks they've been Fiend, and generally their patron was a major part of the campaign. I'd slip him notes and communications, ask him to do things that the party might not like and see how he dealt with it. This player is VERY good, so he played a "I want to be good but I'm stuck in this pact" kind of hero and I matched wits with him as we went, tried to turn him, offer big things for little, secret evils that would seed corruption, that kind of thing.

So for a whole party we have the celestial and fiend patrons fighting over these brothers, but the Hexblade Patron is somewhat less... physically present than those other two, so I don't think it would be much harder than just dealing with the two.

It's more like is this game breaking or powerful but workable. If you were a DM would you "send a specialized group after them, game over, roll new PCs" or roll with it? But yes, I'm also looking for reasons why the RP would not make sense, so thank you!

[Unoriginal]

Well, it seems like it can work, and I'd say it can be pretty efficient in some circumstances.

On the other hand, the whole team is kind of an one-trick pony, and it's certainly not impossible to defeat that tactic.




If we aren't running around murdering villages why would someone assemble a team specifically to take us out? If a GM were to do that then to me, the answer is that it annoys them. If you enjoy the challenge then instead you'd just try to pepper encounters with dispel magic or daylight casters, or try to catch us by surprise. Make it harder for us to do what we're trying to do, not impossible.


Adventurers tend to gather enemies. Sooner or later, there will be people who have the means and the interest to look on how to defeat such a team.

Note that even non-specialized enemies can still defeat this team.

[Millface]

Well, it seems like it can work, and I'd say it can be pretty efficient in some circumstances.

On the other hand, the whole team is kind of an one-trick pony, and it's certainly not impossible to defeat that tactic.

Exactly my first impression. That's why we tried to make sure all of the key elements of a more diverse party are there at least in part. There's still a Sorcerer, A tank, A healer, and a couple focused on damage were the darkness to be thwarted. It just really, really excels at one thing at the cost of being a little less efficient than a normal party without it, though how much less I'm not sure. I think it would be fairly potent even without darkness.

And of course adventurers always make enemies, but this could be said for a regular party as well. A GM can kill any party, he's the God beyond gods of the game world.

[MaxWilson]

If we aren't running around murdering villages why would someone assemble a team specifically to take us out?

No, not unless you annoyed someone into assembling a team to take you out--and even then they're going to rely mostly on their inherent resources. If you annoy a red dragon by defacing his shrines, he might send a team of young dragons and wyrmlings after you (if his spies can locate you), and if you annoy a drow priestess she might send yochlols and shadow demons after you (if you venture close enough to her city), but if you annoy a mercenary captain he's not going to send dragons after you because he hasn't got dragons. He might, however, burn down the inn you're staying in, in order to produce enough smoke to render your Devil's Sight useless, and he would bring enough soldiers to be sure of finishing the job, based on what he knows of your capabilities. If he can't do that then he wouldn't attack you at all, he'd just try to undermine you in other ways besides direct confrontation.

So, basically, no, no one would assemble a team to take you out. The world exists; players make choices within the world, and experience the consequences of those choices, which in your case means e.g. being very weak against Rakshasas and drow hordes and shadow dragons but strong against lots of other things.

[Silkensword]

Unless the DM has specific Trauma linked to Warlocks it will not trigger them since that is a term specific to trauma-linked stress disorders! :)

[Lombra]

Lots of creatures have either tremorsense or blindsight. Many ways to still make the encounters challenging.

[Millface]

No, not unless you annoyed someone into assembling a team to take you out--and even then they're going to rely mostly on their inherent resources. If you annoy a red dragon by defacing his shrines, he might send a team of young dragons and wyrmlings after you (if his spies can locate you), and if you annoy a drow priestess she might send yochlols and shadow demons after you (if you venture close enough to her city), but if you annoy a mercenary captain he's not going to send dragons after you because he hasn't got dragons. He might, however, burn down the inn you're staying in, in order to produce enough smoke to render your Devil's Sight useless, and he would bring enough soldiers to be sure of finishing the job, based on what he knows of your capabilities. If he can't do that then he wouldn't attack you at all, he'd just try to undermine you in other ways besides direct confrontation.

So, basically, no, no one would assemble a team to take you out. The world exists; players make choices within the world, and experience the consequences of those choices, which in your case means e.g. being very weak against Rakshasas and gnoll hordes and shadow dragons but strong against lots of other things.

This is wisdom. Every party, just doing a normal campaign, is going to ruffle feathers. The big bad will eventually catch your sent even if you're wonderful, perfect heroes loved by most. I'm hoping that this party is no more likely to be TPK'ed in that manner than any other party would be, and I don't see why they should be unless, again, the GM thinks you're breaking the game with what you're doing.

[Gryndle]

This is exactly what I meant, and what I was looking for!

Basically it's... "If you were GMing this would it annoy you or would you like the challenge, applaud the creativity"

If we aren't running around murdering villages why would someone assemble a team specifically to take us out? If a GM were to do that then to me, the answer is that it annoys them. If you enjoy the challenge then instead you'd just try to pepper encounters with dispel magic or daylight casters, or try to catch us by surprise. Make it harder for us to do what we're trying to do, not impossible.

see this one of those occasions where the difference between PLAYER mindset and the mindset of character native to the game world is going to be pretty huge.

See any professional warrior/adventurer/bandit that is anything beyond an armed thug...as soon as that person hears of your group using that tactic in the same region as them, they are going to have two immediate thoughts: 1-that's pretty cool, how can I do that? and 2- Hmm, that's pretty cool, if faced with something like that, how can I beat it?

The DM doesn't have to be annoyed with you to come up with counters. He just has believe that there might plausibly be an NPC around that takes combat seriously and likes to be prepared.

[Millface]

see this one of those occasions where the difference between PLAYER mindset and the mindset of character native to the game world is going to be pretty huge.

See any professional warrior/adventurer/bandit that is anything beyond an armed thug...as soon as that person hears of your group using that tactic in the same region as them, they are going to have two immediate thoughts: 1-that's pretty cool, how can I do that? and 2- Hmm, that's pretty cool, if faced with something like that, how can I beat it?

The DM doesn't have to be annoyed with you to come up with counters. He just has believe that there might plausibly be an NPC around that takes combat seriously and likes to be prepared.

Totally! I hope he does, it wouldn't be fun if we just steamrolled everything for 8 months and retired the characters. Some things will be easy and we'll feel coordinated and accomplished, some will be harder than they would be for a more traditional group because we're faced with something where our trump card doesn't work.

The GM rising to the challenge and putting himself in the mindset of the NPCs in his world is wonderful, and very different from intentionally killing the party. It's not like without darkness this group doesn't have a rounded set of PCs, just because they're almost all Warlocks doesn't mean the bases aren't covered somewhat.

[Unoriginal]

It's more like is this game breaking or powerful but workable. If you were a DM would you "send a specialized group after them, game over, roll new PCs" or roll with it? But yes, I'm also looking for reasons why the RP would not make sense, so thank you!

I would do what makes sense in the world. It works in different degrees:

If you piss off a mob boss, they will probably send some "professionals" to take care of your group specifically.

The Drows would be used to enemies trying that kind of Darkness shenanigans, but they wouldn't be prepared vs your group in particular unless they got specific info for some reasons.

The orc raiders that you're attacking because they're about to assault a dwarven outpost are logically not going to be prepared against that kind of thing (not to say they can't be a threat, though).


Exactly my first impression. That's why we tried to make sure all of the key elements of a more diverse party are there at least in part. There's still a Sorcerer, A tank, A healer, and a couple focused on damage were the darkness to be thwarted. It just really, really excels at one thing at the cost of being a little less efficient than a normal party without it, though how much less I'm not sure. I think it would be fairly potent even without darkness.

And of course adventurers always make enemies, but this could be said for a regular party as well. A GM can kill any party, he's the God beyond gods of the game world.

Well, they would still be adventurers, so sure they'll be potent, but this group will have a lot of ressources and option choices tied to that tactic, so as you said, they'll be limited in other ways.


No, not unless you annoyed someone into assembling a team to take you out--and even then they're going to rely mostly on their inherent resources. If you annoy a red dragon by defacing his shrines, he might send a team of young dragons and wyrmlings after you (if his spies can locate you), and if you annoy a drow priestess she might send yochlols and shadow demons after you (if you venture close enough to her city), but if you annoy a mercenary captain he's not going to send dragons after you because he hasn't got dragons. He might, however, burn down the inn you're staying in, in order to produce enough smoke to render your Devil's Sight useless, and he would bring enough soldiers to be sure of finishing the job, based on what he knows of your capabilities. If he can't do that then he wouldn't attack you at all, he'd just try to undermine you in other ways besides direct confrontation.

So, basically, no, no one would assemble a team to take you out. The world exists; players make choices within the world, and experience the consequences of those choices, which in your case means e.g. being very weak against Rakshasas and drow hordes and shadow dragons but strong against lots of other things.

Well, yes and no. Assembling a team to take you out *could* happen. If the evil warlord sees the PCs are a big enough thorn in their side, they're probably going to say "find me people who can take on those Warlocks", not "let's send some random muscles like all the ones the Warlocks defeated up until now".

Sure, the NPCs will certainly not know for sure what the PCs can do, but if you're well-known for one gambit, it's not surprising people will prepare themselves to counter it/hire people who can counter it.


see this one of those occasions where the difference between PLAYER mindset and the mindset of character native to the game world is going to be pretty huge.

See any professional warrior/adventurer/bandit that is anything beyond an armed thug...as soon as that person hears of your group using that tactic in the same region as them, they are going to have two immediate thoughts: 1-that's pretty cool, how can I do that? and 2- Hmm, that's pretty cool, if faced with something like that, how can I beat it?

The DM doesn't have to be annoyed with you to come up with counters. He just has believe that there might plausibly be an NPC around that takes combat seriously and likes to be prepared.

True, and well-said.

[ErHo]

I'd thrust you all into the underdark to even the field.

[Hudsonian]

Honestly, it seems like a powerful combo until around level 12-13 when you really start coming across a lot of dragons, demons, and underdark type monsters. The majority of the baddies at high tiers have blindsense, the ability to see in magical darkness, or could play the dispel magic game like an Olympic ping pong player... and your typical adult green dragon sorcerer might have all three.

I'd probably just let it play until the party got outclassed by naturally better opponents.


edit: added a missing word

[Millface]

I'd thrust you all into the underdark to even the field.

While he and I both DM in such a way as to never force the party to do anything, giving us strong motivation to go there would likely work. Creatures with blindsight or tremorsense would certainly be interesting to fight.

So far the consensus seems to be that this is a neat combo and it's totally workable from a DM's standpoint, so that's good! Wildly strong in some scenarios, but not game breaking.

I'm biased because it's my group but I'm pretty sure as a DM I was far more frustrated with a straight up, regular druid tank than I would be at this party. That guy just. Wouldn't. Die.

[Armored Walrus]

Sounds like a fun game to me. The only potential objection I'd raise to it would be if it conflicts with the setting or tone of the campaign I want to run. Then again, if I've got five players invested to the level you guys obviously are, then I'll probably be running a campaign with a setting and tone that this works in.

[Millface]

Sounds like a fun game to me. The only potential objection I'd raise to it would be if it conflicts with the setting or tone of the campaign I want to run. Then again, if I've got five players invested to the level you guys obviously are, then I'll probably be running a campaign with a setting and tone that this works in.

We, as DMs, are indeed very considerate of what the party is looking to do. When I propose that the party is mostly warlocks I don't mean to say they're all evil, either. The group will be neutral with exception for the Celestial Patron Warlock, and therefor capable of being convinced to run pretty much any kind of adventure. They aren't all tieflings or devils themselves either, so it's not as though they'll necessarily turn heads or make villagers pee themselves when they try to buy rations.

[Armored Walrus]

I was far more frustrated with a straight up, regular druid tank than I would be at this party. That guy just. Wouldn't. Die.

At low levels for sure, Wildshape is far more OP than darkness/devil's sight. I run a battle royale game where players roll up characters to fight each other. Warlocks with darkness/devil's sight do ok until someone decides to quit ignoring them and get up on them. But the triple-plus HPs that the moon druid got were ungodly. A level 3 moon druid can, in our experience, take on any two other level 3 characters absent some kind of battlefield advantage on the part of the other two. It seems to even up around fifth level.

[Tanarii]

And winning right up until the DM decides (rightly so) that you would get a reputation for this and someone would hire a team specifically designed to exploit this over-specialization to come take you out. Campaign over, roll up new characters.
Sounds like a triggeted DM to me. In 30 years of playing D&D, the only times ive seen a not-pissed-off DM assemble a special anti-PC squad was because they're evil murder-villain PCs.

(Modules with generic assassin attacks dont count, theyre not tailored to the party.)

[Willie the Duck]

This is exactly what I meant, and what I was looking for!

Basically it's... "If you were GMing this would it annoy you or would you like the challenge, applaud the creativity"

Well, I don't know that I'd call it creative, since it's just a larger permutation of the first thing everyone thought of when they cracked open their PHBs for the first time and saw the Devil's Sight invocation (and then read on to realize how rare other forms of seeing through magical darkness are). However, in general, the reaction I would have to my entire group of players building towards a certain exploit would be roughly this.


If we aren't running around murdering villages why would someone assemble a team specifically to take us out? If a GM were to do that then to me, the answer is that it annoys them. If you enjoy the challenge then instead you'd just try to pepper encounters with dispel magic or daylight casters, or try to catch us by surprise. Make it harder for us to do what we're trying to do, not impossible.

Who said it was some kind of 'team good guy' that would assemble to take out the PCs? If the party keeps succeeding (succeeding at being good, succeeding at being bad, succeeding at making a profit), they are going to get a reputation. If that success includes at least one survivor to tell the tale, eventually it's going to get out how you keep succeeding. And someone's going to want to come along and roll you for your loot or for xp or to make a name for themselves, and they'd be foolish not to exploit any weakness that overspecialization brings. That's not DM metagaming, that's realism.

[Millface]

Well, I don't know that I'd call it creative, since it's just a larger permutation of the first thing everyone thought of when they cracked open their PHBs for the first time and saw the Devil's Sight invocation (and then read on to realize how rare other forms of seeing through magical darkness are). However, in general, the reaction I would have to my entire group of players building towards a certain exploit would be roughly this.



Who said it was some kind of 'team good guy' that would assemble to take out the PCs? If the party keeps succeeding (succeeding at being good, succeeding at being bad, succeeding at making a profit), they are going to get a reputation. If that success includes at least one survivor to tell the tale, eventually it's going to get out how you keep succeeding. And someone's going to want to come along and roll you for your loot or for xp or to make a name for themselves, and they'd be foolish not to exploit any weakness that overspecialization brings. That's not DM metagaming, that's realism.

I think some of you are wildly underestimating the potential potency of this group without darkness. All of the elements of a normal adventuring group are still there, and countering the darkness wastes precisely two sorcery points from one PC and nothing more. You still have to deal with what is largely a balanced role-based party that is not very unlike a Fighter/Cleric/Barbarian/Rogue/Sorcerer would be. In which case this party should be no more susceptible to the "special party to take out the PCs who are a thorn in the bad guys side" than any other group.

Edit: or I'm wildly overestimating how potent the party would be without, that is certainly possible. It looks like it's all there, but maybe in practice it would feel more lacking than I'm expecting it to!




At low levels for sure, Wildshape is far more OP than darkness/devil's sight. I run a battle royale game where players roll up characters to fight each other. Warlocks with darkness/devil's sight do ok until someone decides to quit ignoring them and get up on them. But the triple-plus HPs that the moon druid got were ungodly. A level 3 moon druid can, in our experience, take on any two other level 3 characters absent some kind of battlefield advantage on the part of the other two. It seems to even up around fifth level.

Amen. I think a raging Bear Barb would be the closest thing. Half damage from all sources plus great damage themselves, they can unarmored with a shield for 18+ AC at level 3 on top of that.

[Unoriginal]

As a DM I would make this group meet with a bunch of partying Hill Giants who are engaged in a fisticuff/wrestling competition and other games as part of one of their holy days, which allows even non-Giants to join the party and/or the competition/games if they wish so.

No particular reason why, I just like the idea of a bunch of Warlocks sitting with Hill Giants and their other guests, being given a barrel of the approximative Hill Giant beer, and just having a good time.

[the secret fire]

As a DM, I would be fine with this if the campaign starts at first level. A bunch of warlocks working together from the beginning to get the most out of their particular abilities is entirely plausible, even commendable. Getting this party concept off the ground from 1st level would take a lot of work and coordination, and as a DM, I would have ample opportunities to have the wider world react and adapt to the party's tactics.

If the campaign is starting with the PCs already leveled...hell no, rocks would fall.

[Pex]

... about what?
You all took warlocks who can see through darkness. And thus you'll be casting darkness a lot. And winning right up until the DM decides (rightly so) that you would get a reputation for this and someone would hire a team specifically designed to exploit this over-specialization to come take you out. Campaign over, roll up new characters.

Was there an actual question, more specific than if we were a DM would it trigger (however you mean that) you?


Hey, assuming the worst of DMs out to kill the party is my job!

Why should a DM see this party's shtick and immediately go, "Oh, so they think they're so clever? I'm the DM! I'll show them true power. There'll be a TPK within a month after a false sense of security they think their strategy will work. Stupid players. They always think they can outwit the DM."

Way not cool.

[MaxWilson]

It might be worth explicitly discussing the weaknesses of the group to put things in perspective.

The group is lightly armored, with only one guy who's even proficient in using shields. If most PCs are in the AC 14-15 range, disadvantage due to darkness isn't even that strong. Depending on what invocations they pick, they can be very strong at ranged combat, but they're likely to be more "solid" than "invulnerable" when it comes to taking hits.

The group doesn't have much healing--only the one Celestial Warlock, and the temp HP on the Fiendlock (and Armor of Agathys) as a form of quasi-healing. They won't deal all that well with attrition.

The group doesn't have a wide spell selection--warlock + sorcerer spell lists only, plus pact spells. Options like Planar Binding, Conjure Animals, Wall of Force, and Animate Dead are all off limits to them, as are spells like Absorb Elements and Shield. (At least you've got ubiquitous Counterspell access though, and are rather good at avoiding Counter-Counterspell.)

The group relies on a tactic which requires advance preparation. Under ambush conditions, you may have to burn actions getting Darkness spells up before responding effectively, which could lead to an enemy getting a round and a half of attacks before PCs even respond. (If some of the warlocks are Chainlocks, though, you may be able to detect ambushes in advance--but the basic point about action economy remains.)

The group relies on a tactic which can be countered by any other source of heavy obscurement in addition to Darkness.

The group doesn't have great Dex saves or Con saves, and their tactical specialization encourage them to stay in Fireball Formation so that one Darkness spell can cover them all. At 8th level, a couple of Young White Dragons are only rated as a Medium encounter, 23% of the daily XP budget, but it is it's not at all unlike that two Young White Dragons might each inflict a full 45 points of damage on 3-4 PCs with each breath weapon, breaking concentration on spells (bye, bye, Hex! bye Darkness!) and quite possibly reducing several PCs to 0 HP or worse. Even supposing you blast both dragons to death shortly thereafter, you're still down several hundred HP in a party that isn't particularly good at healing. Fights with flameskulls, mind flayers, magma mephits, etc. would play out similarly.

Is this a reason not to do it? No! These are just the reasons I'd feel pretty comfortable as a DM letting you wander around the sandbox without special treatment, taking whatever pre-placed adventure hooks catch your fancy. You have strengths and weaknesses just like anybody else. Maybe these PCs will just steer way clear of dragons and mind flayers and flameskulls and drow and concentrate on becoming famous giant-slayers and orc-killers instead; or maybe they'll develop tactics that mitigate their weaknesses and tackle the dragons, etc., anyway.

[Millface]

It might be worth explicitly discussing the weaknesses of the group to put things in perspective.

The group is lightly armored, with only one guy who's even proficient in using shields. If most PCs are in the AC 14-15 range, disadvantage due to darkness isn't even that strong. Depending on what invocations they pick, they can be very strong at ranged combat, but they're likely to be more "solid" than "invulnerable" when it comes to taking hits.

The group doesn't have much healing--only the one Celestial Warlock, and the temp HP on the Fiendlock (and Armor of Agathys) as a form of quasi-healing. They won't deal all that well with attrition.

The group doesn't have a wide spell selection--warlock + sorcerer spell lists only, plus pact spells. Options like Planar Binding, Conjure Animals, Wall of Force, and Animate Dead are all off limits to them, as are spells like Absorb Elements and Shield. (At least you've got ubiquitous Counterspell access though, and are rather good at avoiding Counter-Counterspell.)

The group relies on a tactic which requires advance preparation. Under ambush conditions, you may have to burn actions getting Darkness spells up before responding effectively, which could lead to an enemy getting a round and a half of attacks before PCs even respond. (If some of the warlocks are Chainlocks, though, you may be able to detect ambushes in advance--but the basic point about action economy remains.)

The group relies on a tactic which can be countered by any other source of heavy obscurement in addition to Darkness.

The group doesn't have great Dex saves or Con saves, and their tactical specialization encourage them to stay in Fireball Formation so that one Darkness spell can cover them all. At 8th level, a couple of Young White Dragons are only rated as a Medium encounter, 23% of the daily XP budget, but it is it's not at all unlike that two Young White Dragons might each inflict a full 45 points of damage on 3-4 PCs with each breath weapon, breaking concentration on spells (bye, bye, Hex! bye Darkness!) and quite possibly reducing several PCs to 0 HP or worse. Even supposing you blast both dragons to death shortly thereafter, you're still down several hundred HP in a party that isn't particularly good at healing. Fights with flameskulls, mind flayers, magma mephits, etc. would play out similarly.

Is this a reason not to do it? No! These are just the reasons I'd feel pretty comfortable as a DM letting you wander around the sandbox without special treatment, taking whatever pre-placed adventure hooks catch your fancy. You have strengths and weaknesses just like anybody else. Maybe these PCs will just steer way clear of dragons and mind flayers and flameskulls and drow and concentrate on becoming famous giant-slayers and orc-killers instead; or maybe they'll develop tactics that mitigate their weaknesses and tackle the dragons, etc., anyway.

This is extremely helpful! Thanks!

There are reasons beyond the optimal set up that we want to do this as well, that being that we have been playing together for almost two decades and are constantly looking for new ways to challenge ourselves from an RP perspective, and this group is sure to require some pretty nuanced interplay for it to avoid falling apart completely.

Having one set of circumstances where we shine and roll the enemy and other circumstances where we have to seriously prep or get breath weaponed to death (lots of things you added I hadn't yet thought about, so, awesome) sounds right up our alley, moreso than if it truly were gamebreaking, because that's not the goal. We aren't jerks, we just like to try new things and that's hard when we've all played every class probably more than once for at least 6 months in one edition or another. A good way to do that is to work on our overall party dynamic together and make THAT different and challenging.

To the last couple that are above this, thank you for your input! This will, indeed, start at level 1, where I imagine we'll have a rough go until 3, then smoother until 9 ish, after that it's a mixed bag.

[fbelanger]

Pc are heroes.
Every body want to do what heroes do.
Slowly but surely the warlock will become the most popular class among npc. Even monster will start to make pact with devil to be able to see in darkness.
Devils will be in a rise and more and more frequent.

[Willie the Duck]

Hey, assuming the worst of DMs out to kill the party is my job!

Why should a DM see this party's shtick and immediately go, "Oh, so they think they're so clever? I'm the DM! I'll show them true power. There'll be a TPK within a month after a false sense of security they think their strategy will work. Stupid players. They always think they can outwit the DM."

Way not cool.

Good thing no one said anything like that, then.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You applied some half-hearted, unrealistic RP window dressing to that sentiment.

[Malifice]

Elven Accuracy to taste, because 90% of the time the entire party will have advantage.

I would expect to be encountering a lot of devils, critters with blindsight, true sight, tremorsense and so forth if I were you.

You could count on it in a campaign I was running.

Not all the time of course. But it would be happening.

[Laserlight]

Speaking as someone who has actually played a darkness/devil's sight lock:
a) if you're trying to keep all the PCs within one Darkness, you're trying to keep all the PCs within one Fireball or other AoE.
b) make sure your shadow sorc has a high Initiative modifier.

[Pex]

... about what?
You all took warlocks who can see through darkness. And thus you'll be casting darkness a lot. And winning right up until the DM decides (rightly so) that you would get a reputation for this and someone would hire a team specifically designed to exploit this over-specialization to come take you out. Campaign over, roll up new characters.

Was there an actual question, more specific than if we were a DM would it trigger (however you mean that) you?


Good thing no one said anything like that, then.

Someone did.

[Pelle]

Not sure if it counts as being triggered or not, but I might be bored fast if the party repeats this same tactic all the time. Depending on how fun the players are, I would probably ask them after a while to nerf it so it becomes fun again, or ask them if they want to find another GM.

[Millface]

Not sure if it counts as being triggered or not, but I might be bored fast if the party repeats this same tactic all the time. Depending on how fun the players are, I would probably ask them after a while to nerf it so it becomes fun again, or ask them if they want to find another GM.

I could see that, but he's crafty. I don't see him prepping a group of murder machines specifically to TPK us, but he will occasionally throw us a surprise by adding strong AoE elements, creatures with blindsight/tremorsense, or casters to dispel the darkness to keep us on our toes. It's always a DMs job to make sure that the party is adequately challenged while also ensuring that sometimes they feel like awesome, unbeatable heroes. After this discussion I don't think that this party will make that any harder for our DM to do.

There's a pretty lengthy post on the front page of the thread that lists the tactics many weak points, so it would take, in my mind, a pretty one dimensional DM to ask the players to stop instead of just throwing a wrench in it from time to time.

[Unoriginal]

Sufficiently large creatures can also "push" some PCs out of the zone. As in, force them to get out to be able to move.

[Pelle]

I guess it depends a bit on the type of settings you play in. If your setting allows you to pick and choose from the MM to challenge the party without it feeling contrived narratively, no problem. Myself, I detest kitchen sinks however, and might struggle to enjoy that. Thus I would like this party to be part of the premise of the game, so that a suited campaign could be tailored to it...

[Millface]

I guess it depends a bit on the type of settings you play in. If your setting allows you to pick and choose from the MM to challenge the party without it feeling contrived narratively, no problem. Myself, I detest kitchen sinks however, and might struggle to enjoy that. Thus I would like this party to be part of the premise of the game, so that a suited campaign could be tailored to it...

I'm running ToA right now and I imagined this group in that setting. It's not tailored to it by default, but there's nothing that says you can't add a caster to an encounter to dispel the darkness from time to time or otherwise tweak things how you see fit without being overly douchey about it. Even in something as closed off as a module the DM has enough wiggle room that it should be ok.

[Willie the Duck]

You applied some half-hearted, unrealistic RP window dressing to that sentiment.


Someone did.

I was condescending, I will admit. I was rather unimpressed with the OP using the term 'triggered' (seriously, that is a term meant to describe people with legitimate post traumatic stress disorders being sent back emotionally to their own personal hell, not to describe a Dungeon Master in a little elf-game losing their cool over their players all using the same game trick).

Regardless, my end suggestion is valid and no way "unrealistic RP window dressing." Characters get reputations. If they use the same tactic in all situations, people will hear about it and prepare for it. Honestly, if me and my fellow players came up with an 'exploit' (and I'm trying to use that term neutrally, substitute your own neutral term if you disagree that it is), and our DM never threw us up against opponents who were prepared for it, we would feel cheated (and it seems that this is exactly the contingency that OP is preparing for). Frankly, Millface had the right response--they (groups who have heard about them) will prepare countermeasures, but even with the darkness (/see-through-it) factor taken out of the equation, they are still a diverse group of characters with melee, ranged, short-and-long-rest-recharging abilities far and above one simple gimmick. MaxWilson is right that there are some other limits they've ended up with (and the low ACs and Con/Dex save issues being a problem when someone isn't darkness hampered could no joke mean a TPK if the DM is not careful when the party finally runs into prepared opponents).

[Millface]

I was condescending, I will admit. I was rather unimpressed with the OP using the term 'triggered' (seriously, that is a term meant to describe people with legitimate post traumatic stress disorders being sent back emotionally to their own personal hell, not to describe a Dungeon Master in a little elf-game losing their cool over their players all using the same game trick).

Regardless, my end suggestion is valid and no way "unrealistic RP window dressing." Characters get reputations. If they use the same tactic in all situations, people will hear about it and prepare for it. Honestly, if me and my fellow players came up with an 'exploit' (and I'm trying to use that term neutrally, substitute your own neutral term if you disagree that it is), and our DM never threw us up against opponents who were prepared for it, we would feel cheated (and it seems that this is exactly the contingency that OP is preparing for). Frankly, Millface had the right response--they (groups who have heard about them) will prepare countermeasures, but even with the darkness (/see-through-it) factor taken out of the equation, they are still a diverse group of characters with melee, ranged, short-and-long-rest-recharging abilities far and above one simple gimmick. MaxWilson is right that there are some other limits they've ended up with (and the low ACs and Con/Dex save issues being a problem when someone isn't darkness hampered could no joke mean a TPK if the DM is not careful when the party finally runs into prepared opponents).

I'll change the title, I was looking for a word that would convey the meaning without the title being a book. The word has been widely adapted to mean "tick off" or "frustrate" or "offend", and language is always changing, but it wasn't my aim to offend anyone, obviously. It's used in gaming environments to portray that something "triggers" general negative feelings toward an action, and I was using it as such. Words are cool, and most of them have more than one use.

I'll see if I can't impress you with my next one :smalltongue:

[Tanarii]

Regardless, my end suggestion is valid and no way "unrealistic RP window dressing." Characters get reputations.Uh huh. I've only ever seen this suggested as a thing in forums, outside of Evil parties making a huge destructive splash. And even then they aren't custom tailored to the PCs tactics, as you are suggesting.

Otherwise, as I said, in actual games, special ninja assassin squads that perfectly counter the PCs are inevitably the direct result of a pissed off DM trying to counter an effective rules combination they made the mistake of allowing in the game in the first place.

In other words, it smells mighty like a bad justification for going anti-PC. Like tailoring encounters to PC weaknesses and strengths under the guise of "challenges naturally vary", it smells mighty rancid.

[Millface]

Uh huh. I've only ever seen this suggested as a thing in forums, outside of Evil parties making a huge destructive splash. And even then they aren't custom tailored to the PCs tactics, as you are suggesting.

Otherwise, as I said, in actual games, special ninja assassin squads that perfectly counter the PCs are inevitably the direct result of a pissed off DM trying to counter an effective rules combination they made the mistake of allowing in the game in the first place.

In other words, it smells mighty like a bad justification for going anti-PC. Like tailoring encounters to PC weaknesses and strengths under the guise of "challenges naturally vary", it smells mighty rancid.

This is especially true once the full list of this tactic's counters and weaknesses was compiled. While at first I figured we'd always start with this as the default plan, it's occurred to me after all this super helpful discussion that the darkness tactic should instead be one we use only when we sniff out the weakness and know it will work. More of a trump card against a good number of encounters than a default way to go about combat.

We're exceptionally weak to AoE magic, especially since it doesn't specify in fireball that it has to go to a point you choose that you can see, it just says "a point you choose in range". The Sentinel feat on one of our brawlers is going to be almost a must have to keep casters inside the globe if at all possible.

[MaxWilson]

This is especially true once the full list of this tactic's counters and weaknesses was compiled. While at first I figured we'd always start with this as the default plan, it's occurred to me after all this super helpful discussion that the darkness tactic should instead be one we use only when we sniff out the weakness and know it will work. More of a trump card against a good number of encounters than a default way to go about combat.

We're exceptionally weak to AoE magic, especially since it doesn't specify in fireball that it has to go to a point you choose that you can see, it just says "a point you choose in range". The Sentinel feat on one of our brawlers is going to be almost a must have to keep casters inside the globe if at all possible.

IMO, you guys should specialize in nighttime assaults, because you get the benefits of Darkness without having to put yourselves in Fireball Formation. The Darkness spell should be strictly a plan B for when there's no natural darkness and you have no more pressing need for your concentration, and even then you should still strive to stay mobile even if it requires multiple Darkness spells. (Note further that in many cases, Prestidigitation to snuff out a torch is just as good as Darkness for creating darkness, but with no concentration cost or spell slot cost.)

So, make sure everybody takes Stealth proficiency one way or the other, and try to get some familiars and/or invocations that can be used for recon. Try to think like a Special Forces team.

[Pex]

Uh huh. I've only ever seen this suggested as a thing in forums, outside of Evil parties making a huge destructive splash. And even then they aren't custom tailored to the PCs tactics, as you are suggesting.

Otherwise, as I said, in actual games, special ninja assassin squads that perfectly counter the PCs are inevitably the direct result of a pissed off DM trying to counter an effective rules combination they made the mistake of allowing in the game in the first place.

In other words, it smells mighty like a bad justification for going anti-PC. Like tailoring encounters to PC weaknesses and strengths under the guise of "challenges naturally vary", it smells mighty rancid.

Careful. Your inner Pex is showing.
:smallsmile:

[Ganymede]

"Wait, so your group theme is just one big mechanical interaction? May I recommend everyone generate random characters using the D&D Beyond feature instead?"

[Millface]

IMO, you guys should specialize in nighttime assaults, because you get the benefits of Darkness without having to put yourselves in Fireball Formation. The Darkness spell should be strictly a plan B for when there's no natural darkness and you have no more pressing need for your concentration, and even then you should still strive to stay mobile even if it requires multiple Darkness spells. (Note further that in many cases, Prestidigitation to snuff out a torch is just as good as Darkness for creating darkness, but with no concentration cost or spell slot cost.)

So, make sure everybody takes Stealth proficiency one way or the other, and try to get some familiars and/or invocations that can be used for recon. Try to think like a Special Forces team.

With all the talk about the magical darkness I didn't even really think about just regular darkvision and put out the lights, these are all really good thoughts! Even in normal darkness our Gloomstalker would be invisible even to those with darkvision.

So many things get dark vision I let this tidbit slip by, so thanks!

[Willie the Duck]

I'll change the title, I was looking for a word that would convey the meaning without the title being a book. The word has been widely adapted to mean "tick off" or "frustrate" or "offend", and language is always changing, but it wasn't my aim to offend anyone, obviously. It's used in gaming environments to portray that something "triggers" general negative feelings toward an action, and I was using it as such. Words are cool, and most of them have more than one use.

I'll see if I can't impress you with my next one :smalltongue:

I appreciate the effort. I work with substance abuse individuals, many have PTSD and related issues and don't need the medical terminology related to their condition conflated with 'snowflake' or other internet vernacular and generally used to imply people being ridiculously upset over trivial things.

As to the general topic. I may well have been over the top. However, if a group of players find an exploit, and expect that no one is going to come back with a countermeasure, and if one did appear then accuse the DM of going anti-PC, that smells mighty rancid to me right back in the other direction.

Mind you, Devil's sight/Darkness is not a game-ruining exploit. It's at most advantage for the wielders and disadvantage for their adversary. It will not crack the system open. But back in 3e, there was an exploit/setup/strategy called Scry and Die, where you used a crystal ball to find your opponent BBEG when they were alone, then teleport your team in (with all your combat buffs up at once) and Nova them into oblivion. Well, about a year into the games' run the boards started lighting up with threads on what to do about it, and the advice usually came along the lines of in that world, people would have heard of that possibility and made countermeasures.

At least at the time, no one called that the direct result of a pissed off DM trying to counter an effective rules combination they made the mistake of allowing in the game in the first place. The called it reasonable response, both by DM and in the game world's verisimilitude, and a realistic progression of exploit-to-countermeasure. Other than the scale of the issue, I'm not sure what the difference is.

[Legendairy]

Sorry to all the posters before me, I am not reading them all right now so if I repeat something I’m sorry and I’m sorry in general as I usually read the whole thread.

Now I have been dming for 15 years or so, I would love to have a cohesive group like this. For me personally I wouldn’t be “triggered”(I am more triggered by the use of the word than the post lol). It’s a neat trick and it brought you all together and are all already working together, great! The combo is cool but can be negated fairly easily by spells, anti magic, counter spells, and dispel. One thing to look into is that the shadow sorc using his sp to cast darkness doesn’t say if you can or can’t stack on subtle so may be counterspellable, which gives another way to stop him from seeing in it at least. A few items can replicate daylight and the like. Is it semi power gamy? Absolutely but in a bought out tactical way that will have a lot of role play implications.

So my 2 copper is that it wouldn’t cause issues at my table and I would welcome the challenges it comes with!

[MaxWilson]

As an aside:


Mind you, Devil's sight/Darkness is not a game-ruining exploit. It's at most advantage for the wielders and disadvantage for their adversary. It will not crack the system open.

It won't crack the system open, but it will place the spotlight squarely on an aspect of 5E's design that makes no sense: Why am I getting advantage for being unseen, anyway?

In melee it makes sense that you'd get advantage for it being hard or impossible to parry your invisible weapons, but a bunch of warlocks blasting away with blazing bolts of eldritch energy... why do they suddenly become more accurate just because the target can't see their silhouettes? After all, it's not like the target doesn't know they're there in the big ball of darkness, and it's not like the target is relying on seeing their fingers twitch 100' away in order to know which way to move to dodge, and it's not like the target is surprised by yet another Eldritch Blast or can't see the Eldritch Blasts coming. Tthey're exactly as dodge-able as Eldritch Blasts from a visible spellcaster, because the blasts themselves are still visible (so it's irrelevant whether or not the Eldritch Blasts move at lightspeed or bullet speed or arrow speed). There's nothing at all in the scenario that should suddenly make the Eldritch Blasts become more accurate when the caster is shrouded in darkness, so if advantage is being awarded, it's purely because the RAW says so and for no other logical reason.

Having a nonsensical rule take center stage is just asking for the group as a whole (not just the DM) to take notice and replace it with a rule that makes more sense.


But back in 3e, there was an exploit/setup/strategy called Scry and Die, where you used a crystal ball to find your opponent BBEG when they were alone, then teleport your team in (with all your combat buffs up at once) and Nova them into oblivion. Well, about a year into the games' run the boards started lighting up with threads on what to do about it, and the advice usually came along the lines of in that world, people would have heard of that possibility and made countermeasures.

At least at the time, no one called that the direct result of a [upset] DM trying to counter an effective rules combination they made the mistake of allowing in the game in the first place. The called it reasonable response, both by DM and in the game world's verisimilitude, and a realistic progression of exploit-to-countermeasure. Other than the scale of the issue, I'm not sure what the difference is.

There's an enormous difference between a NPCs everywhere optimizing their behavior to match the rules of the game world, which have existed since the beginning of time (or at least since the spells which interact with those rules were first researched), and NPCs everywhere optimizing their behavior to counteract the favored tactics of a particular group of PCs.

Invention of guns: knives fall out of favor. This is okay. (It does tend to frustrate melee-oriented PCs like barbarians, but that's a topic for another time.)

PCs get a "reputation" for casting spells: NPCs start buying anti-magic pets. This is much less okay unless it is really and truly justified by roleplaying considerations in-world, and even there you need to be really careful about the way you run things. Almost any PC can be assassinated after all by an assassin with sufficient resources and the right plan, and the game ceases to be fun if a DM arranges for NPCs to begin a war of assassination against the PCs.

The reason it ceases to be fun is because so much of the activity takes place offscreen. All that the players see is that they kill NPCs some of the time, and at other apparently-arbitrary times, a PC gets mugged by overwhelming force in his bathtub or something and dies. They don't get to see the preparations the NPCs go through to learn where the PC lives and when he bathes and to arrange for a bunch of assassins with Purple Worm Venom-poisoned weapons to assault him while he's naked and with no defensive spells up. They just see the result, which is heavily stacked against them.

I can imagine circumstances under which an assassination war would be fun, but I think it would necessarily entail having someone besides the DM run the other side of the war: maybe something like the Head of Vecna, between two PC groups. But if the person with infinite power over the game world, who is also in charge of resolving the results of all actions, is also in charge of the offscreen activities which result in a PC getting ganked by overwhelming force... that's just going to make the players feel frustrated and helpless.

[the secret fire]

Mind you, Devil's sight/Darkness is not a game-ruining exploit. It's at most advantage for the wielders and disadvantage for their adversary. It will not crack the system open. But back in 3e, there was an exploit/setup/strategy called Scry and Die, where you used a crystal ball to find your opponent BBEG when they were alone, then teleport your team in (with all your combat buffs up at once) and Nova them into oblivion. Well, about a year into the games' run the boards started lighting up with threads on what to do about it, and the advice usually came along the lines of in that world, people would have heard of that possibility and made countermeasures.

At least at the time, no one called that the direct result of a pissed off DM trying to counter an effective rules combination they made the mistake of allowing in the game in the first place. The called it reasonable response, both by DM and in the game world's verisimilitude, and a realistic progression of exploit-to-countermeasure. Other than the scale of the issue, I'm not sure what the difference is.

I agree with you that a living world should be expected to adapt to any sufficiently notorious party of player characters. Power, wealth and influence are mostly zero-sum games. As soon as the party starts stepping on the toes of other powerful interests, they should expect to be the targets of scrying, and to start facing bespoke enemies who understand their tactics.

Also, in any campaign world in which Warlocks are even remotely common, the whole darkness/devil's sight trick, and the counters to it, will be known by the powers that be. You really think the great powers of a given campaign world will allow themselves to be thwarted by a 2nd level spell/class ability combination? The only way I can see for this party to get away with its schtick for long is to leave no witnesses. Just go full-on Anton Chigurh; kill every single being who has seen the party use its powers and defile the bodies so that Speak With Dead and other magical means of sleuthing will not work.

A "shadow company" who no one has ever lived to tell about is an interesting and viable concept...for an evil campaign.

[Willie the Duck]

It won't crack the system open, but it will place the spotlight squarely on an aspect of 5E's design that makes no sense: Why am I getting advantage for being unseen, anyway?

{explanation, trimmed for size.}

Having a nonsensical rule take center stage is just asking for the group as a whole (not just the DM) to take notice and replace it with a rule that makes more sense.

Maybe where we've arrived at is the "mistake of allowing in the game in the first place" option. Just say no as the DM. It's fine if it's a nice little out-of-the-way gimmick the party's one warlock occasionally pulls out when they want to shine and the fact that the rest of the party then can't well help isn't important. Same as the one-handed quarterstaff, shield, and PAM -- it's not overpowered, it's just silly, and okay for one guy, but when the whole party shows up so be-decked...

[Tanarii]

Careful. Your inner Pex is showing.
:smallsmile:
No longer can I see players as the enemy and a DM's job as killing them. Clearly I've been corrupted.

[DnDegenerates]

The shadowfell would make a perfect storyarch for a party comp like this.

[tieren]

fog cloud is still a first level spell right?

Devil's sight doesn't allow sight through fog does it?

Tactic countered level one.

[sithlordnergal]

As a DM, I would applaud it, and I'd happily give you enough times to fully use this to it's greatest effect. However, as others have said I would start to create encounters that have counters to this , be it Daylight spells, things with blindsight, ect.

You'd also have to deal with AoEs, and eventually wall spells because you guys are clumped up. Or, if I am being really sneaky, I'd simply toss in an eversmoking bottle, which your special darkvision can't see through.

All in all though, it is a good, fun strategy that would not bother me. Just expect combats to be a biiiit trickier.