PDA

View Full Version : Optimization DM gives us custom magic items with drawback -> ? -> profit?



ButzSanchez
2020-05-08, 03:56 AM
So our DM is particular about handing out magical items. To be clear, I like her approach. Most of the time we only find such things in the possession of shopkeepers you wouldn't want to cross/probably can't or shouldn't steal from. She makes the clearly amazing stuff really expensive so that the only way we could acquire it is by pooling our money, but makes it unlikely we'd ever do that since there are usually multiple cheaper items that will get our attention and everyone wants something new for themselves. While she was resistant to us having this kind of access to magical equipment, it's become a running joke at our table that we'll get more excited to go shopping than we get to tackle the next dungeon, and she creates really diverse and interesting shops now. She's also fond of building custom items to prevent us from getting our hands on the kind of equipment in the DM's guide that is truly balance breaking, while still making these items interesting.

For instance, the fancy stones we can put in any weapon to make it a +2 weapon, but only when used on fiends. A significant power up with a limitation. Personally, I think this is the most powerful thing she's handed us so far, and it was one of the early magic items we found, so it makes sense she's scaled it back since then. Or the sheath of holding, which can hold up to four swords, and when you reach to draw your weapon it's always whichever one you're thinking of that is stored in it. But it's only for swords. Neat, but not going to break the game.

Anywho, one of the things we happened across was the flame shield, an object of her creation which my Sorcadin picked up. With a bonus action, speaking the command word causes it to erupt in flames. While active, at the beginning of the wielder's turn both the wielder and any creature 5ft in front of them roll a DC 10 dex save. The wielder takes 1d6 fire damage, and anything in front of them takes 2d6 fire damage, both halved on a successful save (don't know how the person holding it can successfully avoid that, but whatever, I'm not pointing that out). Naturally, this is a pretty significant drawback on paper, but I realized something about it she may not have. It's free damage with no action cost besides the initial bonus action. Sure, free damage of the most resisted type in the game, and it's easy as pie to halve it for almost everything in the monster manual, but still, free damage.

Also got me thinking; I'm a sorcerer right? You know what would pair nicely with this? Absorb Elements. I hurt myself, spend my reaction and a spell slot, automatically halve the damage and maybe quarter it if I make the save, then my next attack gets a power up.

Now, given the amount of resources I have to spend to pull this strange combination off, I think to myself that this may not be the kind of combo I want to use often. If I use my reaction, can't use the shield spell I have to protect myself until my next turn. I'm hurting myself and leaving myself more vulnerable for increased damage. And since I took protection style for my fighting style, I also won't be able to keep my allies safe. I decide that maybe I'll keep it in my back pocket, but shouldn't pull it out unless things look dire.

Well, in a recent game a particular shop was selling an "Imitation Flametongue". Some student of enchantment tried to make a Flametongue and was only somewhat successful. It has 4 charges and a recharging function, a lot like the rarer magic staves in the DM's guide. Using a bonus action activates it, and you deal an extra 1d6 fire damage on your next hit with it. However, activating it immediately deals 1 fire damage to the wielder. I asked the DM if I could have it's activation word be the same as the shield's so I could turn them both on at once. She says yes.

Now I'm thinking this just adds to what I was planning before. So I play it out in my head. I activate the two with a bonus action. Immediately take 1 fire damage, but don't activate absorb elements yet, since it's just 1 damage and halving it does nothing. Since I have spells to cast and have been acting as the party buffer, I don't use my action to make a melee attack (warcaster still lets me cast with the sword and shield out). On my next turn, assuming I have my reaction still, I automatically take the damage from the shield and use absorb elements to reduce it and power up my attack.

With one turn, I can deal 2d6 with the shield, then 2d8 with a longsword booming blade (currently level 9) with the chance for an additional 2d8, another 1d6 with the sword and another 1d6 with absorb elements. Altogether that's at least 4d6+2d8, with a chance for more. If I stack one of the smite spells on top of that, it's at least another d6, more if I choose one of the ones that scales with spell level.

Now this brings up a few questions; first, this would involve me using my reaction once my turn has started. Can I cast absorb elements, a leveled spell, as a reaction on my turn and still cast a different leveled spell that turn, followed with a cantrip? For instance, if I cast absorb elements with my reaction to halve that fire damage, can I then use my bonus action to cast any of the smite spells, then follow up with a booming blade for my action? Does this violate the casting rules? I'm not certain since it only mentions it in the section for bonus action spells.

Secondly, is this even a wise choice if I can do it? I'm spending my reaction, a spell slot, taking damage and hoping I can do something else on my set up turn to do this. Many of the smite spells already accomplish a similar effect for just one spell slot and a bonus action. Heck, searing smite literally does the same thing, and just like absorb elements, the damage scales with the slot. But on that note, if my DM rules that I can use my reaction and a bonus action on my turn for leveled spells, I could theoretically scale both spells up for more damage. Still, it's a ton of prep.

OldTrees1
2020-05-08, 08:34 AM
Now this brings up a few questions; first, this would involve me using my reaction once my turn has started. Can I cast absorb elements, a leveled spell, as a reaction on my turn and still cast a different leveled spell that turn, followed with a cantrip? For instance, if I cast absorb elements with my reaction to halve that fire damage, can I then use my bonus action to cast any of the smite spells, then follow up with a booming blade for my action? Does this violate the casting rules? I'm not certain since it only mentions it in the section for bonus action spells.

Casting restrictions only occur if you cast a spell as a bonus action that turn. If you do all other spells must be cantrips.
Smite spell -> Booming Blade = OK
Absorb Elements -> Booming Blade = OK

ButzSanchez
2020-05-08, 09:39 AM
Casting restrictions only occur if you cast a spell as a bonus action that turn. If you do all other spells must be cantrips.
Smite spell -> Booming Blade = OK
Absorb Elements -> Booming Blade = OK

Wait, if that's the case, does casting a spell with a time of one bonus action prevent you from casting a spell as a reaction? Like, if I use one of those smite spells, does that prevent me from using Absorb Elements if the enemy lobs a fire bolt at me in the same round?

JNAProductions
2020-05-08, 10:25 AM
Wait, if that's the case, does casting a spell with a time of one bonus action prevent you from casting a spell as a reaction? Like, if I use one of those smite spells, does that prevent me from using Absorb Elements if the enemy lobs a fire bolt at me in the same round?

It's by turn, not round.

firelistener
2020-05-08, 10:45 AM
Wait, if that's the case, does casting a spell with a time of one bonus action prevent you from casting a spell as a reaction? Like, if I use one of those smite spells, does that prevent me from using Absorb Elements if the enemy lobs a fire bolt at me in the same round?

Your Reaction isn't actually part of your "turn". It's in the same "round", but not considered part of your turn even if something triggers it while you are taking your turn. You can only use one Reaction per round, and can take a Reaction again beginning on the start of your next turn.

So the bonus action cast doesn't restrict you from casting a spell for your Reaction, meaning Absorb Elements is always an option on your turn.

You can check PHB page 190 for the Reaction rule and page 202 for the Bonus Action casting restriction if you would like to find them.

ButzSanchez
2020-05-08, 11:44 AM
It's by turn, not round.

Okay. I looked up some other information regarding that and it lines up with this. As long as it's not during my turn, I can use a reaction spell following the use of a bonus action spell on my turn.


Your Reaction isn't actually part of your "turn". It's in the same "round", but not considered part of your turn even if something triggers it while you are taking your turn. You can only use one Reaction per round, and can take a Reaction again beginning on the start of your next turn.

So the bonus action cast doesn't restrict you from casting a spell for your Reaction, meaning Absorb Elements is always an option on your turn.

You can check PHB page 190 for the Reaction rule and page 202 for the Bonus Action casting restriction if you would like to find them.

This conflicts with what someone else here has said. I've looked up other sources but there seems to be some debate as to whether using your reaction during your turn counts as it being part of said turn. The section in the PHB you refer to says it can occur "on your turn or someone else's", but that kind of implies to me that yes, it is occurring on your turn and is part of that turn if the trigger makes it happen at that time. Also states that "if the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue it's turn right after the reaction", but that emphasizes another creature, which also implies the same to me.

I'm all for being able to do all three on my turn, but I want to figure out what seems most appropriate here before I try this with my DM. Wanna make sure I've crossed my Ts and all that.

Chronos
2020-05-08, 11:53 AM
By RAW, if you cast a spell as a bonus action, there are no other leveled spells that turn, no matter what action it takes to cast them. So you can't cast, say, Branding Smite and Absorb Elements both during your turn. But you can cast Branding Smite during your turn, and then Absorb Elements in reaction to something someone else does, because that's not your turn any more.

Of course, a lot of folks find this rule complicated, so it's possible your DM might houserule it some other way. But we can't tell how your DM will rule it.

JackPhoenix
2020-05-08, 09:26 PM
Immediately take 1 fire damage, but don't activate absorb elements yet, since it's just 1 damage and halving it does nothing.

Not true. Unless explicitly specified otherwise, you round any fractions down. Half of 1 is 0.5, rounded down to zero. If you use Absorb Elements, you take no damage. And while resistances don't stack, the same isn't true about resistance and halving damage on a successful save. If the 1d6 roll is 3 or less, succeeding on the save and applying resistance will negate the damage (half of 3 from save is 1.5, rounded down to 1, then apply resistance to halve it again, round down to 0).

Greywander
2020-05-09, 01:36 AM
I can't help but think that that shield would be really good on a rogue, or basically anyone who gets Evasion. DC 10 isn't hard to pass, especially if you have a good DEX and proficiency in DEX saves (once your save bonus hits +9, it becomes impossible to fail). Evasion means you take no damage on a passed save, and only half on a failed save. So on a rogue with high DEX, the main drawback ceases to have any effect.

That said, rogues don't normally get shield proficiency, so you're looking at either a multiclass or someone who picked up Moderately Armored. While it's not unlikely you have a rogue in your group, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that you have a rogue that is proficient with shields. If so, maybe think about trading items with them.

Something I'd like to clarify, though: When you say the shield burns anything "in front of" you, what do you mean by that? 5e doesn't use facing rules. Is it (a) you burn one target within 5 feet, (b) you burn everything in a 5 foot cone, or (c) you burn everything within 5 feet of you? Is this an AoE or single-target? What's the range?

As for the sword, JackPhoenix is correct: fire resistance would reduce 1 fire damage to 0. If you, or another party member, has resistance to fire damage, they can again use the weapon without any drawbacks. That said, 1 point is almost negligible, depending on your level. It would actually be decent on a barbarian, who needs to either attack or take damage to maintain rage. Being able to self-damage, and only 1 point at that, would be useful for a barbarian worried about losing their rage.

ButzSanchez
2020-05-09, 06:03 AM
Not true. Unless explicitly specified otherwise, you round any fractions down. Half of 1 is 0.5, rounded down to zero. If you use Absorb Elements, you take no damage. And while resistances don't stack, the same isn't true about resistance and halving damage on a successful save. If the 1d6 roll is 3 or less, succeeding on the save and applying resistance will negate the damage (half of 3 from save is 1.5, rounded down to 1, then apply resistance to halve it again, round down to 0).
Ooh, didn't know that. Where can I find that info? I've checked the PHB's info on resistances, but it doesn't say anything about rounding down. Is it in a different book?


I can't help but think that that shield would be really good on a rogue, or basically anyone who gets Evasion. DC 10 isn't hard to pass, especially if you have a good DEX and proficiency in DEX saves (once your save bonus hits +9, it becomes impossible to fail). Evasion means you take no damage on a passed save, and only half on a failed save. So on a rogue with high DEX, the main drawback ceases to have any effect.

That said, rogues don't normally get shield proficiency, so you're looking at either a multiclass or someone who picked up Moderately Armored. While it's not unlikely you have a rogue in your group, it is unlikely (though not impossible) that you have a rogue that is proficient with shields. If so, maybe think about trading items with them.

Something I'd like to clarify, though: When you say the shield burns anything "in front of" you, what do you mean by that? 5e doesn't use facing rules. Is it (a) you burn one target within 5 feet, (b) you burn everything in a 5 foot cone, or (c) you burn everything within 5 feet of you? Is this an AoE or single-target? What's the range?

As for the sword, JackPhoenix is correct: fire resistance would reduce 1 fire damage to 0. If you, or another party member, has resistance to fire damage, they can again use the weapon without any drawbacks. That said, 1 point is almost negligible, depending on your level. It would actually be decent on a barbarian, who needs to either attack or take damage to maintain rage. Being able to self-damage, and only 1 point at that, would be useful for a barbarian worried about losing their rage.

We were pretty general with it since it's a homebrew item. She has stated at the beginning of my turn, I pick a direction for the shield to face, and anything 5 ft in that direction makes the save. This ensures the enemy can't just dip around me every turn and negate it, otherwise I wouldn't use it at all.

Also, we DO have a rogue, and he chose to multiclass into hexblade warlock following the raven queen after discovering people in the shadowfell (in this campaign anyway) were A-Okay with murder as long as you brought the bodies to the temple to be disposed of afterward. So technically, yeah, he could use the shield, though I don't imagine he would given the loss of his reaction for more damaging enemy attacks.

JackPhoenix
2020-05-09, 06:17 AM
Ooh, didn't know that. Where can I find that info? I've checked the PHB's info on resistances, but it doesn't say anything about rounding down. Is it in a different book?

Nah, it's a general rule that applies to all rolls. PHB p.7: "There's one more general rule you need to know at the outset. Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater."

ButzSanchez
2020-05-09, 06:55 AM
Nah, it's a general rule that applies to all rolls. PHB p.7: "There's one more general rule you need to know at the outset. Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater."

Thanks! Willing to bet my DM doesn't know about that one, I'll be sure to share it.