The 7 Tactical Aspects of Combat: an ambitious youtube series

[Bilbron]

I've created a 7 part series for powergamers and new players that takes a high-level, big picture look at combat tactics for D&D.

#1: Terms of Engagement - https://youtu.be/5JXlk1PBvmU
#2: Maneuverability - https://youtu.be/ihk3MIYDUh4
#3: Environment - https://youtu.be/p3bt1_L9M_Q
#4: Resource Management - https://youtu.be/fMP_aU2oG2s
#5: Efficiency - https://youtu.be/t-4Ci4EEPwE
#6: Offense - https://youtu.be/SjBpQ8KUhuw
#7: Defense - https://youtu.be/rrUwtFs4F1c

[Evaar]

Interesting idea, I'll definitely check it out.

[MaxWilson]

I'm watching video #1 right now. Good points. Terms of engagement is widely overlooked and yet so important to doing well in a combat, to the extent that one's first priority in any engagement on unfavorable terms should be regaining the situational advantage. E.g. sometimes it is genuinely better for the wholeparty to start a combat by Disengaging or Dashing (with one or even all PCs) to a more favorable position/formation/configuration instead of fighting where they happen to be standing. It can help you avoid being surrounded, can take enemies off your backline and force them to engage your tougher PCs, can help you exploit chokepoints and difficult terrain, etc.

Nitpick though: clerics can get proficiency in Perception via backgrounds, just like anyone else.

Since you're playing an Enchanter/Cleric with lots of stealth, I just want to call out (in case you didn't already know) that both Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm are usable while invisible, as long as the target can still hear you, and that neither one breaks Invisibility because they aren't spellcasting. In fact, Sanctuary works with Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm too, although unlike Invisibility you can't reuse it for a whole hour. Also, Hypnotic Gaze breaks on damage, but it does NOT break if you restrain an enemy with a net (BTW ranged weapons have disadvantage when used within 5' of a non-incapacitated hostile, but Hypnotic Gaze incapacitates), or grapple them, or knock them prone, or restrain them with manacles, or spend a whole hour hypnotizing them while some other PC casts Planar Binding on them. It's a much more useful ability than it appears at first, even though you only get one attempt per enemy (because failure renders them immune to retries). (Another good thing about Invisibility is that it prevents opportunity attacks, since opportunity attacks work only against targets you can see, so you can just run over to a different monster and hypnotize them instead.)

[Bilbron]

Nitpick though: clerics can get proficiency in Perception via backgrounds, just like anyone else.

I have to confess that I was unaware of custom backgrounds*, lol, but this glaring deficiency has been pointed out to me, and I regret not mentioning them in the video.

* relatively new to 5e, just one character and one campaign, and I missed that part during character creation and obviously it's never come up again until I did the video. But yes, I'm kicking myself now for having Insight and not Perception, lol.

[Bilbron]

Since you're playing an Enchanter/Cleric with lots of stealth, I just want to call out (in case you didn't already know) that both Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm are usable while invisible, as long as the target can still hear you, and that neither one breaks Invisibility because they aren't spellcasting. In fact, Sanctuary works with Hypnotic Gaze and Instinctive Charm too, although unlike Invisibility you can't reuse it for a whole hour. Also, Hypnotic Gaze breaks on damage, but it does NOT break if you restrain an enemy with a net (BTW ranged weapons have disadvantage when used within 5' of a non-incapacitated hostile, but Hypnotic Gaze incapacitates), or grapple them, or knock them prone, or restrain them with manacles, or spend a whole hour hypnotizing them while some other PC casts Planar Binding on them. It's a much more useful ability than it appears at first, even though you only get one attempt per enemy (because failure renders them immune to retries). (Another good thing about Invisibility is that it prevents opportunity attacks, since opportunity attacks work only against targets you can see, so you can just run over to a different monster and hypnotize them instead.)

I've enjoyed having those sorts of combos in my back pocket (as I have both Invis and Sanctuary), but in practice I've never had to use it since my DM lets me use HG with Invoke Duplicity, so I've always used them in combination. And most times when I've had a powerful enemy in my face, it's been something immune to Charm and HG isn't helping. In fact, as much as I love Enchanter in a vacuum, the sheer number of enemies we encounter that are immune/resistant has made me regret my decision big time. Fortunately, with Tasha's and my DM's pre-approval, I'll be switching to Chronurgist soon (a subclass that came out after initial character creation, to my long-standing great regret).

[noob]

"knowing where your opponent is" is frequently the hard part of a fight and sometimes it is the hard part for both sides.

[MaxWilson]

"knowing where your opponent is" is frequently the hard part of a fight and sometimes it is the hard part for both sides.

Unfortunately it's also a pain to run correctly at the table without computer support--there's a chess variant with concealed positions called Kriegspiel, but it requires three chessboards and a referee to synchronize them, and so I've never played it even though for thirty-odd years I've wished I could.

It's easier in Theater of the Mind of course, but ideally you'd still have a referee separate from the monster runner, which brings us back to computers, assuming the DM would rather run monsters than merely synchronize boards.

[Bilbron]

Unfortunately it's also a pain to run correctly at the table without computer support--there's a chess variant with concealed positions called Kriegspiel, but it requires three chessboards and a referee to synchronize them, and so I've never played it even though for thirty-odd years I've wished I could.

It's easier in Theater of the Mind of course, but ideally you'd still have a referee separate from the monster runner, which brings us back to computers, assuming the DM would rather run monsters than merely synchronize boards.

This does annoy me somewhat. When you have a 3rd party view, a lot of metagaming occurs without really thinking about how things would appear to the characters. For example, if I place enemies in a Sleet Storm, somehow they still know the layout of the room, and what direction to run for the shortest route out of the SS, but these things wouldn't really be available to characters (maybe the room layout if they have Keen Mind).

But hey, it's just a game, not that big a deal, but it would be nice if such were accounted for.

[LudicSavant]

So I've looked at one of these so far -- resource management. For perspective, I've had experience with games where we're supposed to manage our resources to consistently survive 6 Deadly encounters a day (and occasionally we'd have more than 10 encounters in a day).

The first red flag I see there is where he classifies threat level -- 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% chance of winning, and saying that you should use short rest resources if you have 75%, long rest if you have 50%, and non-renewable (like potions) only at 25%.

Here's the thing with that. 75% chance of winning an encounter is not a good chance of victory in D&D, even for a Deadly encounter. 75% on a regular basis means you are doing very very bad and will not survive the story arc, let alone the entire campaign. If you're waiting to use resources until it gets THAT BAD then you have some serious strategic errors going on.

"But Ludic, isn't 75% a lot? That means I win most of the time, right?" 75% is awful when dealing with iterative probability, because it means (on average) your character survives for 4 encounters. Even a 90% chance of survival is bad odds for a PC -- it means you survive 10 encounters on average.

If you play something like XCOM, you'll no doubt be familiar with people complaining about 'missing 95% shots repeatedly" or how "they lost even though they had only a 1/400 chance of losing in that scenario!" And then of course the people who actually are used to winning on Legendary Ironman mode have to go in and explain to them that 1/400 chance is god-awful gambling and you need better odds than that because when you're going through hundreds of scenarios, a 1/400 chance has a pretty good chance of coming up.

The other problem is that his 'threat level' assessment apparently calculates chance of winning regardless of what you actually spend on it. Somehow.

Additionally, he doesn't make any mention of one of the most important things for resource efficiency: reducing losses caused by enemy actions. HP is a resource, too, for example. If you run low on hit points, you need to stop and rest no matter how many more times you can cast Web today. Vital factors like these simply receive no mention.

There doesn't seem to be much strategy here, just arbitrarily labeling something as 75% / 50% / 25% chance of survival (with no criteria for identifying these situations) and then dogmatically saying that you shouldn't use resources of a certain type (short, long, or non-renewable) unless you're below a certain chance of survival. And I think that's just not very good advice.

He basically ends the discussion of resource management at trying to guess your chance of surviving (based on... no given criteria) and saying that you shouldn't use any resources unless you actually have a 25% or more chance of actually losing the encounter. And that's it.

[Gtdead]

-snip-

I was fairly sure that someone would rip this video apart and you did a phenomenal job ^^. It's the weakest of the seven by far and I had a similar response. I can't possibly agree more with you on the threat percentages, since I've finished War of the Chosen L/I myself.

To give him some credit though, he already talked about health being a resource on another video. I found most of his videos really good.

[Bilbron]

So I've looked at one of these so far -- resource management.

Thanks for your feedback!

You can quibble about my percentages, but I think the overall philosophy still holds up. I'm trying to keep this series at a high level without spending minutes of screen time going over specific tactics... perhaps I should have called them strategies. In fairness, I do cover more of these specific issues in other videos, if I felt they were more appropriate to address as part of some other aspect of combat. I also intend to focus on more specific tactics and such in other videos, such as my Deep Dive and Showdown Series.

In any case, these thoughts have arisen as I've watched many of my colleagues squander resources and were thus relatively toothless later in the day, when I was the only one with any remaining juice.

[Bilbron]

Thanks for your feedback!

You can quibble about my percentages, but I think the overall philosophy still holds up. I'm trying to keep this series at a high level without spending minutes of screen time going over specific tactics... perhaps I should have called them strategies. In fairness, I do cover more of these specific issues in other videos, if I felt they were more appropriate to address as part of some other aspect of combat. I also intend to focus on more specific tactics and such in other videos, such as my Deep Dive and Showdown Series.

In any case, these thoughts have arisen as I've watched many of my colleagues squander resources and were relatively toothless later in the day, when I was the only one with any remaining juice.

Thinking about it, my "threat levels" are really in regards to MY (or THE POWERGAMER'S) PARTY winning or losing. "We" haven't really lost a battle yet, because I'm always there to step in and ramp things up if things ever get really hairy.

An important nuance I probably should have mentioned, but I'm so humble it never occured to me *smirk*

[Bilbron]

Thinking about it, my "threat levels" are really in regards to MY (or THE POWERGAMER'S) PARTY winning or losing. "We" haven't really lost a battle yet, because I'm always there to step in and ramp things up if things ever get really hairy.

An important nuance I probably should have mentioned, but I'm so humble it never occured to me *smirk*

Ultimately, threat levels are an intuitive matter, which I tried to make clear. I think only general rules of thumb are called for here. Whatever you deem a Critical Threat encounter, one should react appropriately in regards to resources. I've got tons of poisons, acids, etc. that I've never used because I've only very rarely deemed a threat critical, but it's nice to have them in my back pocket. And I suppose I could have mentioned marginal utility, where having 15 spells means each one is less valuable than when you have 2 remaining, though I did point to it when mentioning that a good concentration spell is perfectly warranted in a Medium Threat encounter.

[x3n0n]

I was fairly sure that someone would rip this video apart and you did a phenomenal job ^^. It's the weakest of the seven by far and I had a similar response. I can't possibly agree more with you on the threat percentages, since I've finished War of the Chosen L/I myself.

To give him some credit though, he already talked about health being a resource on another video. I found most of his videos really good.

Agreed on all counts, including the videos being really good in general.

And that section *is* identifying something real: if you can't assess encounter difficulty in advance, you will make worse decisions (over- or under-spending) in the crucial early rounds of combat. The given rubric is just wrong, though.

Edit: Bilbron, in general, the etiquette here is to avoid multiple consecutive posts, and to edit one's last post to refine, rather than self-quote multiple posts in a row. It's nice to see someone new and enthusiastic making valuable contributions to the community: keep it up!

[MaxWilson]

Thinking about it, my "threat levels" are really in regards to MY (or THE POWERGAMER'S) PARTY winning or losing. "We" haven't really lost a battle yet, because I'm always there to step in and ramp things up if things ever get really hairy.

An important nuance I probably should have mentioned, but I'm so humble it never occured to me *smirk*

May I say parenthetically that it's nice for once to have a video author who is willing to engage in discussion about his videos and take constructive feedback, as opposed to posting a link and vanishing, or skipping over negative feedback and turning things into a personal ego trip.

Anyway, perhaps it would be better to steer clear of percentages and just talk about threat levels. It also depends on what is at stake and what "lose" means in context. 25% chance of everybody dying to monsters is far more threatening than 60% chance of losing an exhibition match and not winning the prize. (I haven't watched the video in question, just going off thread discussion.)

[Bilbron]

May I say parenthetically that it's nice for once to have a video author who is willing to engage in discussion about his videos and take constructive feedback, as opposed to posting a link and vanishing, or skipping over negative feedback and turning things into a personal ego trip.

Anyway, perhaps it would be better to steer clear of percentages and just talk about threat levels. It also depends on what is at stake and what "lose" means in context. 25% chance of everybody dying to monsters is far more threatening than 60% chance of losing an exhibition match and not winning the prize. (I haven't watched the video in question, just going off thread discussion.)

Clearly the %'s were controversial so if the overall message was lost, I do regret it.

I should also mention that, to me, "losing" an encounter means "forced to retreat". Anything that could potentially result in a TPK would have to be a Critical Threat, I'd imagine.

[Gtdead]

Thanks for your feedback!

You can quibble about my percentages, but I think the overall philosophy still holds up. I'm trying to keep this series at a high level without spending minutes of screen time going over specific tactics... perhaps I should have called them strategies. In fairness, I do cover more of these specific issues in other videos, if I felt they were more appropriate to address as part of some other aspect of combat. I also intend to focus on more specific tactics and such in other videos, such as my Deep Dive and Showdown Series.

In any case, these thoughts have arisen as I've watched many of my colleagues squander resources and were thus relatively toothless later in the day, when I was the only one with any remaining juice.

I agree with the spirit of your analysis. Essentially you are saying that non renewable abilities and resources should be used on a basis of threat assessment which is both logical and intuitive even if a lot of inexperienced players don't do it. It's the presentation of this threat assessment that has some problems. Obviously, a 25% chance to win is a chance that you should never take if it can be avoided. For someone that has been on the short end of that stick, (the mention of XCOM by Ludic is telling in this situation), your percentages go beyond hyperbole and could easily be characterized as ignorance.

Think of a more straightforward scenario. You have to beat a 20 DC check with a +4 to your skill and if you fail you die. That's a 25% chance. Would you ever take it? You have spells that can help a bit but this just isn't salvageable. The chance is comically low for such high stakes. The best spell you can use in this case is teleport.

In any case, your videos are really good and the fact that you take the time to talk about concepts that go beyond the usual white room theorycrafting and spells in different rulings along with examples of creative usage have already made me a subscriber. Keep it up.

[MaxWilson]

Clearly the %'s were controversial so if the overall message was lost, I do regret it.

I should also mention that, to me, "losing" an encounter means "forced to retreat". Anything that could potentially result in a TPK would have to be a Critical Threat, I'd imagine.

Ah, yeah, I imagine that ties into your "maneuverability" principle, with which I strongly agree despite not yet having watched the video. (But it's clear anyway from your love of Phantom Steed.) Having the ability to retreat to safety is critical.

However, having just watched the video on resources, I have to say I think the approach of tying threat levels to renewability speed is not the best way to think about it. There are some non-renewable resources like arrows, caltrops and nets that you can and should spend as freely as cantrips under most scenarios (unless you're utterly cut off from resupply for months). There are short rest resources which ought to be hoarded for the perfect moment (a Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter Fighter should probably not Action Surge without advantage, especially on round 1 if someone else in the party is capable of generating advantage by Shoving an enemy prone or casting a spell--plus, Action Surge is part of your Run Away plan if the enemy turns out to be tougher than you thought).

There are some totally renewable resources that are worthy of discussion too including time and distance: if you can defeat an enemy by spending an extra 60' of movement and six extra seconds instead of spending an Action Surge, you should. (And good recon/intel, part of your Terms of Engagement, tells you whether you can afford to spend those 60' of movement or if that puts you in a Purple Worm's territory.)

The absolute best kind of resources are snowballing resources where you have an opportunity to come out of a fight stronger than you went in. Charm Monster has this potential, especially if you're sneaky enough to cast the spell before the fight starts, so they don't have advantage in their saves and so you can set the conversational mood. (It's not even a concentration spell so e.g. a druid can Charm Monster while still maintaining Pass Without Trace.) As an Enchanter you also have a unique ability e.g. to hypnotize an enemy demon during combat and HOLD them there while your friends cast Planar Binding to make it your slave for a day/month /year (depending).

Anyway, when considering resource expenditure I'm going to suggest a different framework. Estimate how much it would take you to beat a hard threat or escape from a critical one. (Again, definitions for threat levels are subjective, based on context and risk tolerance and campaign trends, and that is okay.) That's your emergency fund. (E.g. a 4th level spell slot for Dimension Door or Polymorph, or a Potion Of Invulnerability.) Set it aside, never rely on it during planning, and never use it UNLESS something surprising happens. Other than that, spend resources freely to reduce risk back to Easy--don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish. This should mostly happen outside of combat if you're doing things right (shouldn't go into combat unless you've already eliminated the risk or you absolutely can't help it). Use resources to do stuff like casting Invisibility on a party scout before they go exploring, setting up a defensive position for the party with Stone Shape and caltrops while the scout is gone, or casting Hypnotic Pattern or Fear on a group of enemies to render half or more of them temporarily irrelevant so you can defeat them in detail.

So the reluctance to spend a resource shouldn't be based on its renewal time (which basically just controls its scarcity) but rather on its value and how much you'd need it in a hard or critical situation. E.g. a Shepherd Druid may get only 2 wildshapes per rest, but he should have zero hesitation about spending at least one of those wildshapes to scout before combat or tank with free HP during combat (Giant Toad or Giant Octopus form), because in an emergency he can't use them both and his action would probably be busy casting actual spells like Conjure Animals anyway. Ditto long rest resources like 1st level spell slots.

It's a complicated problem and I am a natural cheapskate (tend to save too much--e.g. spending six levels as a Lucky human paladin but only using Luck dice once that I can remember, in a dire emergency with banshees), so I'm very aware of the fact that sometimes spending nothing up front eventually costs you more than spending immediately. (But, it can go both ways, especially if there's hidden information.)

That's my feedback.

[Gtdead]

However, having just watched the video on resources, I have to say I think the approach of tying threat levels to renewability speed is not the best way to think about it. There are some non-renewable resources like arrows, caltrops and nets that you can and should spend as freely as cantrips under most scenarios (unless you're utterly cut off from resupply for months). There are short rest resources which ought to be hoarded for the perfect moment (a Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter Fighter should probably not Action Surge without advantage, especially on round 1 if someone else in the party is capable of generating advantage by Shoving an enemy prone or casting a spell--plus, Action Surge is part of your Run Away plan if the enemy turns out to be tougher than you thought).
.

Funny thing since you mentioned arrows. Usually we don't count arrows. We buy them but no one cares about them.

However I recently played the early access of Solasta: Crown of the Magister, which is almost a perfect implementation of the 5e ruleset, and for some reason, the vendor before your first mission has a limited supply of arrows.

I thought I'd find some after killing enemies, but that didn't happen, so for the whole mission I was preferring to attack in melee with my archery ranger and only used the bow in surprise rounds for maximum impact.

Also this game really showed me the distance problem. Considering that the first enemies you will encounter are archer goblins that kite you and then some flying monsters, my action surges were mostly used for dashing instead of going nova. In the pnp with my group we usually don't have to deal with these kinds of encounters that early, and it's an easy problem to outgrow past lvl 3 or so. But for those critical early levels.. After this experience I'll be damned if I ever use arrows freely if I play with a DM that counts them.

For context, in Solasta you create a custom 4 man party and your missions start at lvl 2.

[Bilbron]

However, having just watched the video on resources, I have to say I think the approach of tying threat levels to renewability speed is not the best way to think about it. There are some non-renewable resources like arrows, caltrops and nets that you can and should spend as freely as cantrips under most scenarios (unless you're utterly cut off from resupply for months).

Thanks for your feedback. I was trying to keep these segmented and perhaps one should keep in mind that there's 7 parts to the series, as I believe I cover a lot of what you're talking about in my discussion on Opportunity Cost in the Efficiency video.

I would say that as long as your party has a Mending cantrip in it somewhere, keeping track of arrows and such is probably not worth the bookkeeping time.

[MaxWilson]

Funny thing since you mentioned arrows. Usually we don't count arrows. We buy them but no one cares about them.

However I recently played the early access of Solasta: Crown of the Magister, which is almost a perfect implementation of the 5e ruleset, and for some reason, the vendor before your first mission has a limited supply of arrows.

I thought I'd find some after killing enemies, but that didn't happen, so for the whole mission I was preferring to attack in melee with my archery ranger and only used the bow in surprise rounds for maximum impact.

Also this game really showed me the distance problem. Considering that the first enemies you will encounter are archer goblins that kite you and then some flying monsters, my action surges were mostly used for dashing instead of going nova. In the pnp with my group we usually don't have to deal with these kinds of encounters that early, and it's an easy problem to outgrow past lvl 3 or so. But for those critical early levels.. After this experience I'll be... if I ever use arrows freely if I play with a DM that counts them.

For context, in Solasta you create a custom 4 man party and your missions start at lvl 2.

I'm going to have to check out that game. Sounds like fun!

[Bilbron]

I'm going to have to check out that game. Sounds like fun!

Can't you just get the Cleric to prep Mending?

[MaxWilson]

Can't you just get the Cleric to prep Mending?

Dunno, I haven't played it yet.


Thanks for your feedback. I was trying to keep these segmented and perhaps one should keep in mind that there's 7 parts to the series, as I believe I cover a lot of what you're talking about in my discussion on Opportunity Cost in the Efficiency video.

I would say that as long as your party has a Mending cantrip in it somewhere, keeping track of arrows and such is probably not worth the bookkeeping time.

I watched your video on Efficiency (and BTW I agree about Counterspell--it's not exactly overrated but it is arguably overused, should generally be restricted to countering an enemy's high-threat spells, e.g. countering a Dispel Magic on your own Conjure Animals V spell). I actually don't see anything there which related to the point I was trying to make: scarcity does not create value. Scarce (long-rest or consumable) resources that aren't very powerful are not something that should be saved for critical situations. Barbarian Rages are long-rest resources, but should still be spent relatively freely in order to trivialize moderate-difficulty encounters to trivial, and so should low-level spell slots (e.g. Entangle). You can also spend them somewhat freely just to entertain yourself, e.g. there's no real reason not to "waste" a Hunter's Mark or Goodberry or humorous Disguise Self once in a while if you end most days with over 50% left of your spell points/slots.

BTW, one Enchanter tip that I forgot to mention to you earlier: as a heavily armored Enchanter, you may want to Dodge and then deliberately trigger opportunity attacks specifically so you can spend your reaction to Instinctive Charm, because when you do that you know exactly who the eligible targets besides yourself will be if the target fails its save and you can make sure only monsters will be attacked. Obviously this is more something you would do during a fight that's already pretty much under control to save HP/SP (especially if you're already concentrating on a low-level spell and want to do something better than a cantrip with your action), rather than something you'd do during a critical fight where you're planning to save your reaction for Shield. But, you can't afford to Shield all the time anyway.

[Bilbron]

Dunno, I haven't played it yet.



I watched your video on Efficiency (and BTW I agree about Counterspell--it's not exactly overrated but it is arguably overused, should generally be restricted to countering an enemy's high-threat spells, e.g. countering a Dispel Magic on your own Conjure Animals V spell). I actually don't see anything there which related to the point I was trying to make: scarcity does not create value. Scarce (long-rest or consumable) resources that aren't very powerful are not something that should be saved for critical situations. Barbarian Rages are long-rest resources, but should still be spent relatively freely in order to trivialize moderate-difficulty encounters to trivial, and so should low-level spell slots (e.g. Entangle). You can also spend them somewhat freely just to entertain yourself, e.g. there's no real reason not to "waste" a Hunter's Mark or Goodberry or humorous Disguise Self once in a while if you end most days with over 50% left of your spell points/slots.

BTW, one Enchanter tip that I forgot to mention to you earlier: as a heavily armored Enchanter, you may want to Dodge and then deliberately trigger opportunity attacks specifically so you can spend your reaction to Instinctive Charm, because when you do that you know exactly who the eligible targets besides yourself will be if the target fails its save and you can make sure only monsters will be attacked. Obviously this is more something you would do during a fight that's already pretty much under control to save HP/SP (especially if you're already concentrating on a low-level spell and want to do something better than a cantrip with your action), rather than something you'd do during a critical fight where you're planning to save your reaction for Shield. But, you can't afford to Shield all the time anyway.

Well, I felt like I made my points at the level I wanted (minus the inevitable corrections the perfectionist notes after the fact), and felt like I'd qualified my statements enough (ending with a reminder that I was presenting a very general rule of thumb and that there was a general philosophy being promulgated). If you disagree, I'm at least happy that you're thinking about it in a codified way that is congruent with my overall philosophical point.

I tend to have a defensive playstyle and almost never take damage by leveraging speed, cover, hiding, and obscurement. I very rarely have to use Shield or any other reaction. They are things I like in my back pocket "in a pinch", but I tend to have several layers of tactics above them that mean they very rarely come into play.

[Gtdead]

I'm going to have to check out that game. Sounds like fun!

I can safely say that it's the best dnd game I've played till now.
Keep in mind that it's in early access so it's pretty much an extended demo at this point. It should be fully released in 6 months.

[MaxWilson]

I tend to have a defensive playstyle and almost never take damage by leveraging speed, cover, hiding, and obscurement. I very rarely have to use Shield or any other reaction. They are things I like in my back pocket "in a pinch", but I tend to have several layers of tactics above them that mean they very rarely come into play.

Yeah, sounds like we have very similar instincts/playstyles.

[Snivlem]

So I've looked at one of these so far -- resource management. For perspective, I've had experience with games where we're supposed to manage our resources to consistently survive 6 Deadly encounters a day (and occasionally we'd have more than 10 encounters in a day).

The first red flag I see there is where he classifies threat level -- 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% chance of winning, and saying that you should use short rest resources if you have 75%, long rest if you have 50%, and non-renewable (like potions) only at 25%.

Here's the thing with that. 75% chance of winning an encounter is not a good chance of victory in D&D, even for a Deadly encounter. 75% on a regular basis means you are doing very very bad and will not survive the story arc, let alone the entire campaign. If you're waiting to use resources until it gets THAT BAD then you have some serious strategic errors going on.

"But Ludic, isn't 75% a lot? That means I win most of the time, right?" 75% is awful when dealing with iterative probability, because it means (on average) your character survives for 4 encounters. Even a 90% chance of survival is bad odds for a PC -- it means you survive 10 encounters on average.

If you play something like XCOM, you'll no doubt be familiar with people complaining about 'missing 95% shots repeatedly" or how "they lost even though they had only a 1/400 chance of losing in that scenario!" And then of course the people who actually are used to winning on Legendary Ironman mode have to go in and explain to them that 1/400 chance is god-awful gambling and you need better odds than that because when you're going through hundreds of scenarios, a 1/400 chance has a pretty good chance of coming up.

The other problem is that his 'threat level' assessment apparently calculates chance of winning regardless of what you actually spend on it. Somehow.

Additionally, he doesn't make any mention of one of the most important things for resource efficiency: reducing losses caused by enemy actions. HP is a resource, too, for example. If you run low on hit points, you need to stop and rest no matter how many more times you can cast Web today. Vital factors like these simply receive no mention.

There doesn't seem to be much strategy here, just arbitrarily labeling something as 75% / 50% / 25% chance of survival (with no criteria for identifying these situations) and then dogmatically saying that you shouldn't use resources of a certain type (short, long, or non-renewable) unless you're below a certain chance of survival. And I think that's just not very good advice.

He basically ends the discussion of resource management at trying to guess your chance of surviving (based on... no given criteria) and saying that you shouldn't use any resources unless you actually have a 25% or more chance of actually losing the encounter. And that's it.

I came in here to say pretty much the same thing. The advice in that video is not very useful at all. There is so much to say about resource management in this game (abilty resources vs health resources, group management etc.), and so little comes across in this video. However all the other videos are much better. Honestly, Bilbron, I'd consider making a new resource management video to keep it in league with the rest of your content.

Apart from the above I really enjoyed your content though. Your presentation is also good. There is some annoying background noise though that you should look into, and you might consider making the background a little more engaging.

[Corran]

Efficiency -> Opportunity cost -> Duration

1) I am surprised to see concentration not being mentioned here.
I am playing a warlock (as in the PHB, ie no spell points). I want to have a teleportation spell for mobility. Not the kind of mobility that can win you encounters for which your second video is about. Let's assume that this option is out for me, and let's say that's because the rest of my group consists of brave dummies who always choose to charge head on at the enemies. I just want an option for when some enemy might get to melee with me (because I am squishy and it also puts my good ranged attack at disadvantage) and for when I am restrained, grappled, or otherwise find myself in unsuitable terrain. Let's also assume that I've further determined that this teleportation spell should not use my action, because that means that I wouldn't be able to use EB during that turn, and that is something I wouldn't want. So I have misty step already, which has done a pretty good job for me for the most part. I just leveled up to warlock 10. I dont get a new spell, and although I can retrain something, I am pretty happy with my spell list as it is. Then a friend at the table brings far step into my attention, which is the one spell I managed to overlook when looking at my choices for a possible retraining in spells. I dont really want to lose any of my other (non teleportation) spells, and I am thinking that one teleportation spell is enough for my needs. So essentially I am looking whether I should retrain misty step into far step.

I like far step better naturally, but I am trying to think ahead if there will be any downside to this change. That is, I am looking for opportunity cost. So, first of all, this change uses my only chance to retrain a spell at this level. But since I know that I dont want to retrain any of my other spells anyway, I just treat this opportunity cost as nothing, and I move on to thinking if there is any other downside to this potential change. I see that far step is a 5th level spell, while misty step is only a 2nd level spell. But I am a 10th level warlock anyway (and I am not using spell points), thus I only have 5th level slots anyway. So once again, zero opportunity cost here. I am looking more carefully at the effect of each of these spells. I know I like the effect of far step better, but maybe there are some ways in which misty step is superior. Nope, turns out that as far as the effect is concerned, far step is strictly better (60' teleport instead of just 30', can potentially use it more than once per encounter, and it's also has only a V component, so no sneaky weaknesses, say, if I want to use my tp spell while restrained, and both use just a bonus action). Finally, I look more closely at the durations. And here I see that there might be a problem. Far step is a concentration spell, while misty step is not.

What does this mean? One of two things. That I wont get to use my teleportation spell whenever I am using some of my other concentration spells. Or that I will sometimes have to drop concentration on the spell I am using, and thus cut its duration short, in order to start teleporting around. Either way, we are talking about opportunity cost, which is created if I end up replacing one of my non-concentration options with a better version which is though requiring concentration. This decision could go either way obviously. I just have to evaluate that opportunity cost and then evaluate the upgrade to my tp option. And by doing these things, I will reach a decision.

So, I am looking at my current concentration spells, and I see hex, hypnotic pattern and banishment. I am thinking that it wouldn't be too bad if I started relying a little less on hypnotic pattern and a little more on synaptic static from now on. Banishment while useful to use every now and then, I've recently noticed that it draws too much attention on my character during battle, so maybe it's for the best if I hold just a little back on it. And while I dont like the idea of dropping concentration on hex, especially now that I am so close to getting my 3rd beam, I cannot help but think of our recent enemy. The green-yellow knights. Turns out they dont like to fight fair, as they usually focus on the more fragile members of the party (and I am the most fragile of all). And they get pretty pissed if I end up successfully using banishment on one or two of them. And no matter how I try to misty step and dash away to keep my distance, they seem capable of teleporting every round, and they can bring me down very fast cause they hit like a truck. So maybe sacrificing hex is not that big of a deal after all, since far step seems the perfect counter to the knights. So I am thinking better safe than sorry, I happily pay the opportunity cost which I am creating for my character, and I retrain misty step into far step.

By next level (warlock 11) the campaign encounters have shifted from fighting the knights to extensive dungeoncrawling (against various other enemies), during which we typically rush through 2-3 encounters before we take a short rest (which many times ends up being interrupted, as the dungeon denizens enjoy patrolling their home territory a lot it seems). I am thinking that I'd like an arcanum that lasts long enough, so that I can take some pressure off my pact slots, which never seem to be nearly enough, so I dont think that just the addition of a 3rd slot will cut it. And since I m a fey warlock, I decide for conjure fey to be my pick for 6th level arcanum. That makes me rethink of the value of far step. Now the opportunity cost went up significantly, since my brand new spell which I think I'll need very much from a resource management perspective, adds to that opportunity cost. And my 3rd EB beam means that hex (another long duration concentration spell, which I'll use when I am not using conjure fey) got an upgrade as well (both in term of power but also in term of resource management in response to new state of things, ie dungeoncrawling). And it's been a while since we fought any githyanki knights or anything similar to it, so now I am thinking that far step does not justify its opportunity cost anymore. But I still need a (non concentration) tp option for emergencies, so I am brining misty step back in. (Also, I'll seriously consider retraining the most situational of my short duration concentration options at this point, but that's another matter entirely.)


2) You said something along the lines (dont have time to go and check the exact words right now, so apologies from paraphrasing from memory) that the higher the duration of a spell, the higher its efficiency, and that this is pretty straightforward. I want to tackle this a little bit, because I think there is a catch. But I'll do that later today or tomorrow, cause I dont want to do it hastily.


Great videos btw (apart from #4, which makes me think somewhat of 4e, but I cannot see any good reason to narrow it down like you did for a game like 5e). Watched these 7 so far, but I am definitely going to check your other ones too, cause both the quality of the content and the way you structure and sum up everything makes them enjoyable and informative -you know, in the gaming sort of way at least.

[Ir0ns0ul]

I posted some comments in the videos, really liked the one with the very special guest (Adalina is super funny!)

Overall, really good content and great advises. Comparison between Hypnotic Pattern & Slow was really good and actually changed my mind upon those spells.

Also, I really like the duration and the flow of your videos. In comparison with Treatmonk content, which I actually like, but man... 1 hour duration to display some common tactics about Arcane Trickster is too much!

Keep it up the amazing work - great content and straightforward!

[bendking]

While I think the video about Resource Management is definitely the weakest of the bunch, I still really enjoyed the rest of the videos in the series and will echo the above comments that I much prefer this kind of content to Treantmonk's style. Subscribed and will look forward to more videos!

[Bilbron]

Efficiency -> Opportunity cost -> Duration

1) I am surprised to see concentration not being mentioned here.

2) You said something along the lines (dont have time to go and check the exact words right now, so apologies from paraphrasing from memory) that the higher the duration of a spell, the higher its efficiency, and that this is pretty straightforward. I want to tackle this a little bit, because I think there is a catch. But I'll do that later today or tomorrow, cause I dont want to do it hastily.

Great videos btw (apart from #4, which makes me think somewhat of 4e, but I cannot see any good reason to narrow it down like you did for a game like 5e). Watched these 7 so far, but I am definitely going to check your other ones too, cause both the quality of the content and the way you structure and sum up everything makes them enjoyable and informative -you know, in the gaming sort of way at least.

1. Yes, agreed, you make an excellent point. I probably should have mentioned it, but it slipped my mind while doing the vid. I've forgotten something I wanted to mention on several of these so far... still working out the best way to do this. Trying not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that.

2. I'd be interested to hear your analysis. I wouldn't be surprised if there were subtle nuances in specific scenarios that would give an edge to a spell of shorter duration, as they are all moving parts and ultimately one's intuition is necessary to determine the lowest opportunity cost.

3. I'm surprised that the heavy, multiple qualifiers I made in the Resource Management video regarding the need for intuition and that I was offering very general rules of thumb were insufficient to deter quibbling about the percentages I chose to employ. But I'm a dialectician so perhaps I shouldn't be, lol. I at least take comfort in that no one has challenged the philosophy I'm trying to expound, but rather how I chose to frame it.

[Bilbron]

I posted some comments in the videos, really liked the one with the very special guest (Adalina is super funny!)

Overall, really good content and great advises. Comparison between Hypnotic Pattern & Slow was really good and actually changed my mind upon those spells.

Also, I really like the duration and the flow of your videos. In comparison with Treatmonk content, which I actually like, but man... 1 hour duration to display some common tactics about Arcane Trickster is too much!

Keep it up the amazing work - great content and straightforward!Thanks! Keeping these short and tight is an extremely high concern to me. As a consumer of content, I CAN'T STAND the "5 minutes of content in a 30 minute video" phenomenon, considering it extremely wasteful of my time. I do my best to get to the point and stop talking when I'm finished.

[Klorox]

“I’m sure there’s a wizard in the party; if you’re power gaming, it should probably be you.”

-Bilbron Bafflestone

I gotta admit, I was hooked 2.5 minutes in.

[MaxWilson]

3. I'm surprised that the heavy, multiple qualifiers I made in the Resource Management video regarding the need for intuition and that I was offering very general rules of thumb were insufficient to deter quibbling about the percentages I chose to employ. But I'm a dialectician so perhaps I shouldn't be, lol. I at least take comfort in that no one has challenged the philosophy I'm trying to expound, but rather how I chose to frame it.

People aren't really quibbling about the percentages, if anything they're quibbling about the definition of "lose". You could probably dispel a lot of that criticism simply by saying "be forced to retreat--see video #2 on maneuverability" instead of "lose."

But again, my major objection to that particular video isn't the percentages, it's that the decision framework is based on (IMO) the wrong thing: renewability, instead of value. It simply isn't true for example that an 8th level spellcaster shouldn't cast first-level spells (long rest resources) outside of hard/critical fights, partly because in a hard/critical fight you won't have actions free to cast first-level spells anyway. Rather, you should spend resources either (1) to reduce the risk in difficult fights, turning them back to easy, or (2) to gain information/reduce uncertainty, so that you know whether you're heading into a critical fight, or (3) even in easy fights, to reduce the total party resource expenditure. A cheap Web spell for instance that splits a group of orcs in half and reduces total party damage taken by 50-70 HP may be worth it even if total party HP is ~200 and there was no real risk of actually losing that fight, because (subjective judgment ahoy! details may vary with situation and preference and degree of intra-party cooperation) a 2nd level spell slot isn't worth 50-70 HP.

I like your general perspective, and the other videos I've watched are definitely good, but I strongly disagree with the Resources video, and not just because of the classificiation for threat levels. It deserves a re-think to bring it up to par with the others. If you want to, I mean--even if you don't rewrite it, it's still a very nice video series that brought me some useful insights, it just happens to have one video with which I strongly disagree.

[Unoriginal]

“I’m sure there’s a wizard in the party; if you’re power gaming, it should probably be you.”

-Bilbron Bafflestone

I gotta admit, I was hooked 2.5 minutes in.

That sentence alone nearly made me close the video and stop watching.

[Bilbron]

That sentence alone nearly made me close the video and stop watching.
I have nothing against flavor characters. I understand that playing the same thing the same way gets boring, and certainly flavor characters should be optimized as well.

To me, however, a powergamer wants the most powerful character possible. Which, to me, in D&D, means wizard, of some sort. 5e is the best balanced version of D&D and the other classes have closed the gap, but wizard still has, by far, the most powerful spells available and the most means of winning most battles by having the utility to create an advantage or exploit a disadvantage, relative to other classes, over 1000 battles.

I don't even think this is a hot take. It's an obvious reality that is discomforting to some. I always favor reality/truth over emotional harmony.

[Bilbron]

People aren't really quibbling about the percentages, if anything they're quibbling about the definition of "lose". You could probably dispel a lot of that criticism simply by saying "be forced to retreat--see video #2 on maneuverability" instead of "lose."

But again, my major objection to that particular video isn't the percentages, it's that the decision framework is based on (IMO) the wrong thing: renewability, instead of value. It simply isn't true for example that an 8th level spellcaster shouldn't cast first-level spells (long rest resources) outside of hard/critical fights, partly because in a hard/critical fight you won't have actions free to cast first-level spells anyway. Rather, you should spend resources either (1) to reduce the risk in difficult fights, turning them back to easy, or (2) to gain information/reduce uncertainty, so that you know whether you're heading into a critical fight, or (3) even in easy fights, to reduce the total party resource expenditure. A cheap Web spell for instance that splits a group of orcs in half and reduces total party damage taken by 50-70 HP may be worth it even if total party HP is ~200 and there was no real risk of actually losing that fight, because (subjective judgment ahoy! details may vary with situation and preference and degree of intra-party cooperation) a 2nd level spell slot isn't worth 50-70 HP.

I like your general perspective, and the other videos I've watched are definitely good, but I strongly disagree with the Resources video, and not just because of the classificiation for threat levels. It deserves a re-think to bring it up to par with the others. If you want to, I mean--even if you don't rewrite it, it's still a very nice video series that brought me some useful insights, it just happens to have one video with which I strongly disagree.

I appreciate your feedback, and don't want to come off as dogmatically or reflexively defensive. This video has gotten the most criticism and I recognize and acknowledge that's on me. But I am compelled to point out that I did say that a good concentration spell is warranted in even a Medium Threat encounter, and feel like my multiple mentions that my Threat Levels were very general rules of thumb indicate that I'm on board with these nuances. It seems to me that most of the criticism is of this very specific sort, but I truly don't see how arguments that an 8th level caster shouldn't hesitate to use a 1st level spell in a Medium Threat encounter is in any way counter to the general philosophy presented. If one is thinking about it in a rigorous, granular way and determines that the opportunity cost of a Long Rest Resource is warranted based on his intuitive assessment of the threat level, that's great and consistent with the philosophy that I tried to present here.

The perfectionist in me kind of wants to redo the video now, especially to make clear that I don't mean "TPK" when I say "lose" but rather "forced to retreat", and more heavily qualify it. We'll see, I have other stuff I want to talk about, and the opportunity cost of redoing it is fairly heavy.

[Snivlem]

3. I'm surprised that the heavy, multiple qualifiers I made in the Resource Management video regarding the need for intuition and that I was offering very general rules of thumb were insufficient to deter quibbling about the percentages I chose to employ. But I'm a dialectician so perhaps I shouldn't be, lol. I at least take comfort in that no one has challenged the philosophy I'm trying to expound, but rather how I chose to frame it.

The problem with the video isn't really the percentages, it is that it didn't offer good advice. You could just say: Be carefull with your resources, don't spend them all at once, you have to consider the rest of your adventuring day, and honestly that would be better advice than what you offer in the video.

[Bilbron]

The problem with the video isn't really the percentages, it is that it didn't offer good advice. You could just say: Be carefull with your resources, don't spend them all at once, you have to consider the rest of your adventuring day, and honestly that would be better advice than what you offer in the video.Again, I'm compelled to point out that this is indeed the very last thing I say to close out the video, after once again pointing out that the system I was promulgating was very general as it's comprised of moving parts and that one would have to make judgment calls. This is what I mean when I say that my qualifiers were ignored. But that's fine, if I think people are getting hung up on specific details that were sufficiently qualified, I understand that it's my own fault. I will keep the criticism of this video in mind going forward, to be sure.

[Snivlem]

Again, I'm compelled to point out that this is indeed the very last thing I say to close out the video, after once again pointing out that the system I was promulgating was very general as it's comprised of moving parts and that one would have to make judgment calls. This is what I mean when I say that my qualifiers were ignored. But that's fine, if I think people are getting hung up on specific details that were sufficiently qualified, I understand that it's my own fault. I will keep the criticism of this video in mind going forward, to be sure.

It is not really details though, you spend most of the video outlining your system, and i'd say that system is garbage and frankly anyone who utilize it will be worse off if they actually follow it, and any actual advice you offer is very basic.

Also i'd advice you to tone down your condensending use of the term "flavour characters" to anything that isnt 100% optimized. You will just push away viewers. I get your tounge in cheek attitude and that you are trying to rebrand powergaming with positive connotations, and i think that is fine, but you don't achieve that by setting up some false dichotymy between flavourfull and powerfull characters or making it seem like there is only one way to powergame .

[MaxWilson]

Video #6 starts off with a question: "Allow me to present to you a hypothetical scenario. On the one hand, we have an army that is armed with nuclear weapons. On the other hand, we have an army that is not equipped with nuclear weapons. Do we need to know any other parameters about this battle in order to know who's going to win?"

YES!!! You do! At absolute minimum you need to know how close the two armies are, which tells you whether nuclear weapons are actually usable in that scenario without wiping out your own army. You also need to know how many nuclear weapons one side has, and how big the other army is, and what delivery systems are available to get the weapons to their targets.

I don't want to be negative, but starting off the video with a blatantly wrong answer to a hypothetical is not ideal, especially when so many of the same considerations such as range, friendly fire, and delivery systems apply to both nuclear weapons and D&D spells.

Good point about Sleet Storm as an anti-spellcaster spell though. I just want to note that at first glance, Sleet Storm looks useless against non-spellcasting monsters (it can knock them prone but then heavy obscurement negates the advantage you'd otherwise gain against them, because you can't see them which imposes disadvantage).

Good advice also about needing to be prepared to counter obscurement/invisibility/antimagic zones. Good call on saving consumable poisons for antimagic zones. Animated skeletons with bows also work against antimagic zones.

BTW Adelina is adorable. (Presumably your daughter Bilbron? She has your eyes.) She seems smart too.

I haven't watched the Defense video yet, but want to call out that dropping prone vs. missile fire is a good defense, and it's even a good defense against melee reach attacks. If you can position another PC or summed creature or a piece of terrain (from Stone Shape, Mold Earth, etc.) against a corner such that enemy monsters will be attacking you from 10', then dropping prone is practically the same thing as a free Dodge with no action cost, only movement cost (half your movement when you stand back up again).

[Bilbron]

Video #6 starts off with a question: "Allow me to present to you a hypothetical scenario. On the one hand, we have an army that is armed with nuclear weapons. On the other hand, we have an army that is not equipped with nuclear weapons. Do we need to know any other parameters about this battle in order to know who's going to win?"

YES!!! You do! At absolute minimum you need to know how close the two armies are, which tells you whether nuclear weapons are actually usable in that scenario without wiping out your own army. You also need to know how many nuclear weapons one side has, and how big the other army is, and what delivery systems are available to get the weapons to their targets.

I don't want to be negative, but starting off the video with a blatantly wrong answer to a hypothetical is not ideal, especially when so many of the same considerations such as range, friendly fire, and delivery systems apply to both nuclear weapons and D&D spells.

Good point about Sleet Storm as an anti-spellcaster spell though. I just want to note that at first glance, Sleet Storm looks useless against non-spellcasting monsters (it can knock them prone but then heavy obscurement negates the advantage you'd otherwise gain against them, because you can't see them which imposes disadvantage).

Good advice also about needing to be prepared to counter obscurement/invisibility/antimagic zones. Good call on saving consumable poisons for antimagic zones. Animated skeletons with bows also work against antimagic zones.

BTW Adelina is adorable. (Presumably your daughter Bilbron? She has your eyes.) She seems smart too.

I haven't watched the Defense video yet, but want to call out that dropping prone vs. missile fire is a good defense, and it's even a good defense against melee reach attacks. If you can position another PC or summed creature or a piece of terrain (from Stone Shape, Mold Earth, etc.) against a corner such that enemy monsters will be attacking you from 10', then dropping prone is practically the same thing as a free Dodge with no action cost, only movement cost (half your movement when you stand back up again).

As someone who believes that "defense wins championships", I was having a hard time coming up with a suitable and simple example of the importance of offense, and the nuclear weapon angle was the best option I could come up with. Y'all are a tough crowd! :smallsmile:

I've found Sleet Storm is less effective against ranged attackers but still quite good against melee ones, because they tend to exit the SS in staggered fashion that makes for easy gang tackles. But I do usually use it for spellcasters, and is particularly lethal as War Caster doesn't work against it (only if damage is involved).

Prone is indeed very very good if you don't use obscurement, which would be most characters, I'd say. But if you do (and I certainly do), then it negates all additional instances of advantage/disadvantage, including Prone. Since I use it so much, I have Alert to gain me the benefit of being attacked at disadvantage. That said, for 90% of PCs I think going Prone as a regular tactic makes all kinds of sense.

[Bilbron]

As someone who believes that "defense wins championships", I was having a hard time coming up with a suitable and simple example of the importance of offense, and the nuclear weapon angle was the best option I could come up with. Y'all are a tough crowd! :smallsmile:

I've found Sleet Storm is less effective against ranged attackers but still quite good against melee ones, because they tend to exit the SS in staggered fashion that makes for easy gang tackles. But I do usually use it for spellcasters, and is particularly lethal as War Caster doesn't work against it (only if damage is involved).

Prone is indeed very very good if you don't use obscurement, which would be most characters, I'd say. But if you do (and I certainly do), then it negates all additional instances of advantage/disadvantage, including Prone. Since I use it so much, I have Alert to gain me the benefit of being attacked at disadvantage. That said, for 90% of PCs I think going Prone as a regular tactic makes all kinds of sense.

And yes, Adelina is my daughter! Thanks for the compliments, they make her very happy. She'll be in my upcoming video, which I hope to release tonight or tomorrow.

[MaxWilson]

I watched Defense. It was quite good. Good breakdowns, and BTW I really appreciate how it's broken into nice little segments which show up on the YouTube video bar so you can skip to the next segment easily.

I like the way you phrased your distaste for 1-action defensive spells (vs. movement). They are indeed relatively expensive.

Quibble: how are you getting 16 HP of healing from two Goodberries? You'd have to have a DM who rules that Disciple of Life goes with Goodberry, and who also rules that Goodberry doesn't require an action from the creature receiving the Goodberry, AND you'd need Goodberry to be cast out of a 5th level slot to get +7 HP from each Goodberry.

You make an interesting point about anti-Scrying defenses, although Nondetection doesn't actually stop more than 60% or so of magical enemy recon possibilities, so I'm not sure how useful it actually is. (E.g. invisible enemy scouts ignore Nondetection completely, and even a Scrying spell may not be able to target you but it can still target e.g. other PCs or your familiar, and even though they can't see or hear you they can still see how others react to you and signs of your presence such as doors opening/closing and footprints.) I could see Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum being very useful in scrying-heavy campaigns.


As someone who believes that "defense wins championships", I was having a hard time coming up with a suitable and simple example of the importance of offense, and the nuclear weapon angle was the best option I could come up with. Y'all are a tough crowd! :smallsmile:

I've found Sleet Storm is less effective against ranged attackers but still quite good against melee ones, because they tend to exit the SS in staggered fashion that makes for easy gang tackles. But I do usually use it for spellcasters, and is particularly lethal as War Caster doesn't work against it (only if damage is involved).

Prone is indeed very very good if you don't use obscurement, which would be most characters, I'd say. But if you do (and I certainly do), then it negates all additional instances of advantage/disadvantage, including Prone. Since I use it so much, I have Alert to gain me the benefit of being attacked at disadvantage. That said, for 90% of PCs I think going Prone as a regular tactic makes all kinds of sense.

Yeah, we're a tough crowd, but it's for your own good and the good of the community. :) The Defense example (football) was quite good, no improvements needed there. A good illustration of the importance of Offense is probably going to involve protecting something with a pre-emptive strike--e.g. a police sniper shooting a hostage-taker dead before he can kill the hostage, or a history lesson about why aircraft carriers overtook battleships as the 20th century naval force-projection platform of choice (although the latter example is apparently controversial so maybe better to steer clear).

Looks like I forgot to finish my thought on Sleet Storm: it looks useless at first glance, but it's actually pretty good at slowing enemies down, and furthermore you can drop it at any time to remove the heavy obscurement so your allies can exploit prone enemies. Or, your allies (e.g. animated zombies) can grapple enemies and drag them out of the Sleet Storm, at which point they are already conveniently prone and can't stand back up because they're grappled.

Agree that Alert + heavy obscurement is good. Pyrotechnics is a good spell for wizards who have Alert--assuming you have a handy torch already lit, it's basically no-concentration Blur.

[Bilbron]

how are you getting 16 HP of healing from two Goodberries? You'd have to have a DM who rules that Disciple of Life goes with Goodberry, and who also rules that Goodberry doesn't require an action from the creature receiving the Goodberry, AND you'd need Goodberry to be cast out of a 5th level slot to get +7 HP from each Goodberry.

Yeah, we're a tough crowd, but it's for your own good and the good of the community. :) The Defense example (football) was quite good, no improvements needed there. A good illustration of the importance of Offense is probably going to involve protecting something with a pre-emptive strike--e.g. a police sniper shooting a hostage-taker dead before he can kill the hostage, or a history lesson about why aircraft carriers overtook battleships as the 20th century naval force-projection platform of choice (although the latter example is apparently controversial so maybe better to steer clear).

Our DM generally goes by Crawford's rulings, so yes, he allows Life domain to be used with Goodberry and for them to be applied as potions can (otherwise I would just use potions, I'm fairly rich at this point, and the Life Cleric doesn't feel like she's helping as much, so win win). So a 1st level berry heals 4 HP, and my colleague casts them at 5th level for the 8 HP ones, when she can. She casts them in my Tiny Hut just prior to a long rest with her highest remaining slots, which she gets back 8 hours later vs. the 24 hour duration of the Goodberries.

Yes, I honestly appreciate the criticism. I do like the sniper angle and wish I'd thought of it, but c'est la vie.

[Bilbron]

Our DM generally goes by Crawford's rulings, so yes, he allows Life domain to be used with Goodberry and for them to be applied as potions can (otherwise I would just use potions, I'm fairly rich at this point, and the Life Cleric doesn't feel like she's helping as much, so win win). So a 1st level berry heals 4 HP, and my colleague casts them at 5th level for the 8 HP ones, when she can. She casts them in my Tiny Hut just prior to a long rest with her highest remaining slots, which she gets back 8 hours later vs. the 24 hour duration of the Goodberries.

Yes, I honestly appreciate the criticism. I do like the sniper angle and wish I'd thought of it, but c'est la vie.

As an aside, the proliference of Goodberries in my party with the Life Cleric is one of the reasons I may seem to value HP less than other short-term renewable resources, as they are basically a totally renewable resource under these conditions.

[MaxWilson]

As an aside, the proliference of Goodberries in my party with the Life Cleric is one of the reasons I may seem to value HP less than other short-term renewable resources, as they are basically a totally renewable resource under these conditions.

Yeah, that's understandable. There are a number of ways to get cheap HP in 5E: pre-cached Goodberries, Inspiring Leader, Aura of Vitality (with or without Disciple of Life and/or Extended Spell metamagic), Healing Spirit v1 before the Xanathar's errata nerfed it, Artillerist Artificer, Shepherd Druid (with or without Unicorn Spirit), so this doesn't make you an outlier.

[Unoriginal]

I have nothing against flavor characters. I understand that playing the same thing the same way gets boring, and certainly flavor characters should be optimized as well.

To me, however, a powergamer wants the most powerful character possible. Which, to me, in D&D, means wizard, of some sort. 5e is the best balanced version of D&D and the other classes have closed the gap, but wizard still has, by far, the most powerful spells available and the most means of winning most battles by having the utility to create an advantage or exploit a disadvantage, relative to other classes, over 1000 battles.

I don't even think this is a hot take. It's an obvious reality that is discomforting to some. I always favor reality/truth over emotional harmony.

And it's by favoring this reality/truth that you decided that as a powergamer, your character needed to be a Cleric first.

[Samayu]

I think you could rank the difficulty levels by the amount of resources required to win.

Like for an easy encounter, you wouldn't need to expend any resources to win. And for critical, you'd need to use all of your resources to win. Your daily powers and your highest level spells.


I kinda disagree with you about long duration spells being better than short ones. It depends on the spell. Also, I beg to differ about a fireball being only instantaneous. I would say its effects will last the rest of your target's life. :smallamused:

[Bilbron]

And it's by favoring this reality/truth that you decided that as a powergamer, your character needed to be a Cleric first.That part was forced on me by the DM, as he wanted an all-Cleric campaign (and to stunt my power curve somewhat as the other player's weren't min-maxxing) and wouldn't let me switch until 3rd level. But I would have taken a 1-level dip in something to get armor and a nice class bene. I don't mind a slightly slower spell progression as I actually like having dedicated upcasting slots and the Cleric abilities are highly appreciated in terms of bolstering my defenses and utility (armor, Sanctuary, Healing Word, Guidance, Mending) at all levels of play. Though I may have dipped in something else if I had more choice in that regard.