What happens when you rez a swarmkeeper?

[TerrorSweats]

"Until you die" makes the swarmkeeper ranger, to my knowledge, the only instance in 5e of an explicit condition to lose a class feature with no inbuilt way to get it back or replace it. Except for maybe reincarnated bladesingers before it was open to non elves. There's no ritual or rest timer to get a new swarm if you're resurrected and it doesn't say yours comes back. It just leaves your space.

Not even clerics get ****ed like this. People pretend warlocks do, but at least that's not in a book.
I know it's not rangers, monks, or warlocks of the coast, but still.

I'd at least allow players to retrain the subclass for free if not ignore that line & house rule it coming back when they do. Maybe even say the swarm lifts them back to their feet at the end and chitter happily that their friend is here. Or in surprise because they ate their master's corpse.

Sometimes I hate 5e's no fluff/crunch distinction philosophy.

Like how even artificers & monks have to a)have at least two hands & thumbs, plus several fingers and b) touch & spread them to be allowed to cast a cone of fire that can ignite flammable objects, then still it comes out as a sheet in stead of a real cone. Even a sheet wrapped into a hollow cone is unnecessary jank. Wizards can't shoot it out of a staff. For no reason.

Who do they think is following rules like this? Do any of us? If so, why?

Devs are like "The weave is fickle, who KNOWS why your alchemist has to lick their elbow and shout babbabooey to apply a magic poultice after they set a shoulder?"

You do. It's because you said they do.

"The rules are suggestions, that's just how it works in OUR Faerûn, Eberron & Greyhawk⁽ᵇᵘᵗⁿᵉᵛᵉʳˢᵖᵉˡˡʲᵃᵐᵐᵉʳ⁾, how does it work in YOUR world? Oooooh, Such-freedom!" *waggles fingers*

Then say that in the spell when you want to editorialize or RP while writing rules so I don't have to argue with Devin and bring up rule zero from the foreword chapter everyone skips every time I start to do it different.
Or have new players think they have to ask if their characters can have spells look how they want when it doesn't matter & their dumb **** is usually better. Of ****ing course it can be the flaming ghosts of moths that touched magic bug zappers biting the guards. Obviously your imaginary aarakocra can have a duck bill and flippers. Never don't say that.

I got sidetracked here but really would like to know your thoughts on both if that's cool.

[MaxWilson]

"Until you die" makes the swarmkeeper ranger, to my knowledge, the only instance in 5e of an explicit condition to lose a class feature with no inbuilt way to get it back or replace it. Except for maybe reincarnated bladesingers before it was open to non elves. There's no ritual or rest timer to get a new swarm if you're resurrected and it doesn't say yours comes back. It just leaves your space.

...

Who do they think is following rules like this? Do any of us? If so, why?

...

I got sidetracked here but really would like to know your thoughts on both if that's cool.

This sounds like a bad rule, on par with how Yochlols and Vampires have no way to turn back into solid form once they turn into mist (because doing so takes an action, and they are incapacitated in mist form). You have two choices:

(1) Run the rule the stupid way just because the rulebook says to, even though it's clearly a mistake.

(2) Run the rule the way that it should have been written in the first place.

I vote #2.

[Lord Vukodlak]

This sounds like a bad rule, on par with how Yochlols and Vampires have no way to turn back into solid form once they turn into mist (because doing so takes an action, and they are incapacitated in mist form). You have two choices:

(1) Run the rule the stupid way just because the rulebook says to, even though it's clearly a mistake.

(2) Run the rule the way that it should have been written in the first place.

I vote #2.
I don’t even think the book says 1. Does a Paladin lose his aura for ever when incapacitated. If you aren’t dead the condition doesn’t apply and the swarm comes back.

[Unoriginal]

Is there anything saying "until you die, and if you die then come back you can't get that again"?

There is not.

All this phrasing means is that the swarm isn't sticking with/around your corpse.

There is no reason to try to add meanings.

[MaxWilson]

I don’t even think the book says 1. Does a Paladin lose his aura for ever when incapacitated. If you aren’t dead the condition doesn’t apply and the swarm comes back.

Paladin aura says it works whenever you are not incapacitated. No "until" in the rule.

Man, rereading that Tasha's entry for Swarmkeeper, I'm reminded again why I don't use Tasha's in my games. My eyes practically rolled themselves out of my head on re-reading the first two paragraphs of Swarmkeeper. I can't stand the weak rationale (I won't dignify it by calling it a concept) or the mechanics.

"At 3rd level, a swarm of intangible nature spirits has bonded itself to you and can assist you in battle. Until you die, the swarm remains in your space, crawling on you or flying and skittering around you within your space."

Intangible nature spirits that move you around, or stay in your space but move other people around when you shoot them with arrows? Give me a break. These are just raw game mechanics with the thinnest possible veneer of fluff on top, like the Hexblade all over again, except in Tasha's it's not just the one subclass that's like this.

[sandmote]

Who do they think is following rules like this? Do any of us? If so, why?

Devs are like "The weave is fickle, who KNOWS why your alchemist has to lick their elbow and shout babbabooey to apply a magic poultice after they set a shoulder?"

You do. It's because you said they do.

"The rules are suggestions, that's just how it works in OUR Faerûn, Eberron & Greyhawk⁽ᵇᵘᵗⁿᵉᵛᵉʳˢᵖᵉˡˡʲᵃᵐᵐᵉʳ⁾, how does it work in YOUR world? Oooooh, Such-freedom!" *waggles fingers*

Then say that in the spell when you want to editorialize or RP while writing rules so I don't have to argue with Devin and bring up rule zero from the foreword chapter everyone skips every time I start to do it different. I get the impression they don't actually care, because most people will work to fix their mistakes anyway. That seems to be, if anything, the philosophy behind Tasha's. "What, you gave us a bunch of money and got something that doesn't make sense for it? What do you need us for, can't you rule zero it?"


Or have new players think they have to ask if their characters can have spells look how they want when it doesn't matter & their dumb **** is usually better. Of ****ing course it can be the flaming ghosts of moths that touched magic bug zappers biting the guards. Obviously your imaginary aarakocra can have a duck bill and flippers. Never don't say that. Amen. There's maybe some limit to it, but I love fancy spell descriptions in particular. There's no way all these fireballs look the same.


Intangible nature spirits that move you around, or stay in your space but move other people around when you shoot them with arrows? Give me a break. These are just raw game mechanics with the thinnest possible veneer of fluff on top, like the Hexblade all over again, except in Tasha's it's not just the one subclass that's like this.[/spoiler] I get the vague feeling that its actually based on the 4e Seeker (minor control, minor damage, minor teleportation), or maybe 4e primal classes more generally (ie. use spirits). Which would make it a knockoff of "raw game mechanics with the thinnest possible veneer of fluff." Better? Worse? Other, equally bad idea?

Also, I don't usually mind raw mechanics or thin fluff if they're a balancing factor with other features to fit a specific concept. But I genuinely can't tell if they wanted these basic combat buffs and "swarm" was the first thing they thought of that could kind of explain them all, or if they started with the "swarm" idea and slapped on the first ideas they had.

[MaxWilson]

Also, I don't usually mind raw mechanics or thin fluff if they're a balancing factor with other features to fit a specific concept. But I genuinely can't tell if they wanted these basic combat buffs and "swarm" was the first thing they thought of that could kind of explain them all, or if they started with the "swarm" idea and slapped on the first ideas they had.

It's possible that if you gave an example of raw mechanics that you thought was done well, that maybe I would agree. Or maybe I would still dislike it. (The Dex save for Sacred Flame, for example, is a fairly raw mechanic that's hard to map to a gameplay event, and I find it annoying when I have to say, "You cast Cutting Words, but the enemy... does whatever that Dex save represents, and takes no damage." I mean, yes, if I thought hard about I could probably infer SOMETHING that matches the behavior of Sacred Flame's Dex save, but the fact that WotC could have done the job and didn't annoys me enough that I don't want to do it for them.)

But we seem to agree that Swarmkeeper is lame so it's hard to tell if we would disagree on something else.

[sandmote]

"You cast Cutting Words, but the enemy... does whatever that Dex save represents, and takes no damage." I mean, yes, if I thought hard about I could probably infer SOMETHING that matches the behavior of Sacred Flame's Dex save I typically assume a Dex save means the target dives out of the way, in contrast to a Str/Con save where you power through it physically or mental saves where the spell is trying to trick the target's brain. I assume Sacred Flame comes down from the heavens instead of directly from your location, so someone pressed up against a wall away from you doesn't actually make them harder to hit.

Now, why a save prevents the spell from doing anything this time but usually deals half damage is something I consider awkward.


It's possible that if you gave an example of raw mechanics that you thought was done well, that maybe I would agree. Or maybe I would still dislike it. Note I said I usually don't mind it, not that I usually thinks it good.


But we seem to agree that Swarmkeeper is lame so it's hard to tell if we would disagree on something else. Admittedly, most other people seem to care more about minor details from the lore. For instance, I don't need it explained to me which exact movements and sounds you need to make to cast a spell. I think most other people don't either. But I equally don't need a written explanation of exactly where an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian's spirits come from, something I have seen people complain about. Or how exactly "sword magic" from ToB in 3.5e functions.

Probably the most specific singular example is the Horizon Walker Ranger's Planar Warrior feature. Changing your damage to force against a specific target and dealing extra damage is far less explained than the equivalent features from the other Xanathar's ranger subclasses (ie. Dread Ambusher and Slayer's Prey). But because its solving a problem with the base class and the rest of the Horizon Walker has an understandable concept, I don't mind the one poorly fluffed mechanical bit. It also the one I recall relatively easily, because that problem with the base class is something I need to keep any eye for other reasons.

[MaxWilson]

Probably the most specific singular example is the Horizon Walker Ranger's Planar Warrior feature. Changing your damage to force against a specific target and dealing extra damage is far less explained than the equivalent features from the other Xanathar's ranger subclasses (ie. Dread Ambusher and Slayer's Prey). But because its solving a problem with the base class and the rest of the Horizon Walker has an understandable concept, I don't mind the one poorly fluffed mechanical bit. It also the one I recall relatively easily, because that problem with the base class is something I need to keep any eye for other reasons.

I'm not a huge fan of the Horizon Walker, but doing extra force damage is not what I meant by "raw mechanic."

"Once per round you can use your reaction to swap one creature's attack roll with one of your superiority dice" is something that interacts purely with game jargon and not anything that's REAL in the gameworld, and is a completely raw mechanic.

Swarmkeeper isn't quite that extreme but they didn't put much effort into rationalizing the effects into a coherent and plausible model either. It's clearly just a giant handwave over a bag of raw mechanics.

Cutting Words annoys me too.

[TerrorSweats]

Is there anything saying "until you die, and if you die then come back you can't get that again"?

There is not.

All this phrasing means is that the swarm isn't sticking with/around your corpse.

There is no reason to try to add meanings.

I suppose you could argue that to be implied by necessity.
My impression was that if it says you get them now, no action to summon or anything and they stick around until you die, assuming that they show back up if you're ever brought back to life was adding meaning.

Every other class feature implied to be physically separate to the character that expires if you or it die that I've ever seen has also had an explicit way to at least replace if not return it. Infused items, bonded weapons, beast/primal/drake companions, familiars, spirit ravens, ancient companions, steel defenders, pact tomes, weapons & talismans, arcane armor, genie's vessels, echoes, wildfire spirits & inscribed runes all both stop working when you beef it and have written into them a method to, by expending a resource or for free, replace them either whenever you want or on rests.

The swarm would ideally either be resummonable at very least for a spell slot during a long rest or lose the artifice of being friendly creatures in stead of magic abilities.

I'd just as easily justify calling it magic spirit fog /goo seeping out if you or personal telekinesis as a bunch of teeny-tiny creatures that are only capable of a handful of collective actions because they're glued to your back whenever you're not hiding them in your clothes or throwing them at people.

[TerrorSweats]

This sounds like a bad rule, on par with how Yochlols and Vampires have no way to turn back into solid form once they turn into mist (because doing so takes an action, and they are incapacitated in mist form). You have two choices:

(1) Run the rule the stupid way just because the rulebook says to, even though it's clearly a mistake.

(2) Run the rule the way that it should have been written in the first place.

I vote #2.

This is how I was thinking of this playing out. That's 2 votes for letting them keep it.

Didn't know about vampires, though, I haven't run or read them this edition and assumed they just got free gaseous form that also obscured them or something.
You'd think they'd give them a statblock action or something that says it overrides the incapacitation to turn them back or at least implys that it should as a specifical move over general, condition or hell, make it concentration.
I have to check out this mist junk when I get to a MM.
Why would it incapacitate them? I'd lower the speed a notch and limit it to dodge and dash actions in stead.
They do fly as mist still?

[MaxWilson]

Why would it incapacitate them? I'd lower the speed a notch and limit it to dodge and dash actions in stead.
They do fly as mist still?

Yes, they have a flying speed of 20' as mist.


Shapechanger: If the vampire isn't in sun light or running water, it can use its action to Polymorph into a Tiny bat or a Medium cloud of mist, or back into its true form.
While in bat form...
While in mist form, the vampire can't take any actions, speak, or manipulate Objects. It is weightless, has a flying speed of 20 feet, can hover, and can enter a Hostile creature's space and stop there. In addition, if air can pass through a space, the mist can do so without squeezing, and it can't pass through water. It has advantage on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution Saving Throws, and it is immune to all nonmagical damage, except the damage it takes from sunlight

Whoever wrote that wasn't thinking.

[TerrorSweats]

My eyes practically rolled themselves out of my head on re-reading the first two paragraphs of Swarmkeeper. I can't stand the weak rationale (I won't dignify it by calling it a concept) or the mechanics.
..

Intangible nature spirits that move you around, or stay in your space but move other people around when you shoot them with arrows? Give me a break. These are just raw game mechanics with the thinnest possible veneer of fluff on top, like the Hexblade all over again, except in Tasha's it's not just the one subclass that's like this.[/spoiler]

I agree 100% with your reaction & that that the fluff seems painted on and lame here, but as much as that can annoy me, I tend to find a lot of even reasonably justifued class fluff grating, so my knee jerk response is to disregard a bunch of of it and just cut up classes into their rules & move sets, core theme ideas and character prompts, then work out from the backgrounds & abilities to reskin the class identity half the time anyway so it didn't bother me too much.

Plus, I mean, this is the same book where fighters, rogues & monks got half-psionics to explain why they can move stuff around with magic and teleport at the same levels without telepathic bugs as a go between, an excuse was right there.
Or even just "it's a half caster, ****'s wild, nature & ****, man." would do for me. Which in a way is almost what they did

I'd still consider it as a fair dip for swarm based characters, though I'd assume theyd want more levels in full/pactcaster pretty soon.


I get the impression they don't actually care, because most people will work to fix their mistakes anyway. That seems to be, if anything, the philosophy behind Tasha's. "What, you gave us a bunch of money and got something that doesn't make sense for it? What do you need us for, can't you rule zero it?"

This is a perfect summation of the situation & frankly all their releases to some degree.

Citing rule zero as a reason they shouldn't have to tell you what they meant, repeating a portion of the text with a mild affirmative or negative tone, making up rules on the spot or doubling down on nonsense are the only ways I've ever seen a rules question get answered.
Which at that point why not just do it your self because those are all classic textbook gm asspulls.

But then that just reinforces their "no major revisions, just ask your dm, especially if you are the dm" design philosophy and refusal to put any spin on a moving ball when they can just throw out more as 'optional extras' at it that might fix things and say it's your job to figure out what works.

While a segment of people seem to have already given up on new content and keep core because they just got their jury rigged game bolted together with any house rules so it holds together and stands up the way they like and they can't be assed with variables anymore, specifically because none of the little janky things they found annoying or made no sense ever did or will get official fixes in the core books, because core books don't get updated, unless they do, but never to retroactively apply broadly accepted improvements or changes in the way wotc write rules to keep them consistent.



I get the vague feeling that its actually based on the 4e Seeker (minor control, minor damage, minor teleportation), or maybe 4e primal classes more generally (ie. use spirits). Which would make it a knockoff of "raw game mechanics with the thinnest possible veneer of fluff." Better? Worse? Other, equally bad idea?

Also, I don't usually mind raw mechanics or thin fluff if they're a balancing factor with other features to fit a specific concept. But I genuinely can't tell if they wanted these basic combat buffs and "swarm" was the first thing they thought of that could kind of explain them all, or if they started with the "swarm" idea and slapped on the first ideas they had.

I skipped a lot of 4e, but that would explain some stuff.
And either explanation seems more likely than this being the end goal they had in mind. Specifically in that bugs make you teleport. I guess being explicitly fey was taken but they said the word fairy earlier, which, a sapient humanoid shaped pixie swarm that is always touching you creeps me way the hell out much more than a bug or rat person.


I typically assume a Dex save means the target dives out of the way, in contrast to a Str/Con save where you power through it physically or mental saves where the spell is trying to trick the target's brain. I assume Sacred Flame comes down from the heavens instead of directly from your location, so someone pressed up against a wall away from you doesn't actually make them harder to hit.

Now, why a save prevents the spell from doing anything this time but usually deals half damage is something I consider awkward.


I always assumed that save/half as standard was invented for AoEs so they didn't have to use 2 separate calculations in the same spell for diving out the way of the edge of an area and ducking & protecting your vitals in the center. Then they just kept not implementing more variant save mechanics in the name of keeping it simple & did save vs nothing for cantrips & conditions.

[TerrorSweats]

Yes, they have a flying speed of 20' as mist.


Shapechanger: If the vampire isn't in sun light or running water, it can use its action to Polymorph into a Tiny bat or a Medium cloud of mist, or back into its true form.
While in bat form...
While in mist form, the vampire can't take any actions, speak, or manipulate Objects. It is weightless, has a flying speed of 20 feet, can hover, and can enter a Hostile creature's space and stop there. In addition, if air can pass through a space, the mist can do so without squeezing, and it can't pass through water. It has advantage on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution Saving Throws, and it is immune to all nonmagical damage, except the damage it takes from sunlight

Whoever wrote that wasn't thinking.


I.
They.
Huh.
They even put it after.

[LudicSavant]

I.
They.
Huh.
They even put it after.

What's odd is that they still haven't errataed it, or other examples of jank.

[TerrorSweats]

What's odd is that they still haven't errataed it, or other examples of jank.

Right? There've been many errata releases since and multiple books released specifically about vampires. Recently even.

[Dr. Cliché]

Oh wow. I'd forgotten how badly written the Vampire's Mist Form was.

Hard to believe they never errata'd that. :smallconfused:



Man, rereading that Tasha's entry for Swarmkeeper, I'm reminded again why I don't use Tasha's in my games. My eyes practically rolled themselves out of my head on re-reading the first two paragraphs of Swarmkeeper. I can't stand the weak rationale (I won't dignify it by calling it a concept) or the mechanics.

If you don't mind me asking, which other classes in Tasha's do you feel have comparably weak rationales for their mechanics?

[MaxWilson]

If you don't mind me asking, which other classes in Tasha's do you feel have comparably weak rationales for their mechanics?

It's been a while since I read Tasha's so it's tough to remember.

I remember thinking the re-fluffed Beastmaster "Beast of the XYZ" seems this way: Beastmaster supposedly embodies friendship between man and beast, so why is Mowgli summoning a magical clone of Bagheera instead of working with actual Bagheera?

I remember the Watcher Paladin feeling redundant: honestly it sounds like members of the Watchers should just be plain old Devotion paladins, but that's not quite the same thing as what you're asking about.

What else was there? There are two different fighters, a pseudo-Jedi and a runic knight. Both of those are okay from a flavor perspective although the power creep especially of Rune Knight is discernable.

There was a Fathomless warlock and a Genie warlock. Mechanically they're okay but I think some of the abilities struck me as being weird in a way reminiscent of Swarmkeeper: what does adding bonus damage on a hit really have to do with genies, as opposed to, say, Fiends? How is the patron even accomplishing the bonus damage anyway?--but that's a warlock problem overall.

The classes I barely remember are the ones that I think I had more objection to. I rolled my eyes pretty hard at Creation Bard and Soul Knife. Beast Barbarian was okay. Wild Magic Barbarian definitely felt Swarmkeeper-ish, mostly game-mechanical with not much in-world rationale. Oh yeah, Peace Cleric felt like that too, with all the teleporting and damage transfer (regardless of the spatial relationship between the damage source, damage target, and the teleporting PC after teleporting). Twilight Cleric also felt like a bundle of mechanical goodies a munchkin would love, without a coherent theme or rationale. Flying, extra HP, extra healing, heavy armor--what does any of that have to do with twilight?

I don't really remember the other Tasha's classes off the top of my head.

I still have a copy of Tasha's on my shelf for reference, but yeah, I was not happy with that purchase.

[AttilatheYeon]

Do you want bees? Cuz that's how you get bees!

[sandmote]

I'll at least respond to the examples of pure mechanics, but I does look like we have some severe differences in what bothers us. This does make me interested in your view of older editions, and how many of them have feats that read "make a number higher." Stuff like weapon focus (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#weaponFocus).


Cutting Words annoys me too. Is the problem specifically the mechanical effect or the fact it isn't something anyone can do? Because the lore is that "words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own." So in this case your bard is pulling on words of power that distracts an enemy from what they're doing, causing them to bob when they should have weaved (for a saving throw) or give their target a last moment to avoid the blow (for an attack).


This is a perfect summation of the situation & frankly all their releases to some degree. I feel the need to point out that there will always be some errors, no matter how many times you proofread. For the other books I agree with LudicSavant about the lack of errata.

Tasha's seems to have a lot of errors for mere oversight, though. For instance, a psi knight has a special feature to allow it to regain a Psionic Energy die as a bonus action. This feature refreshes on a short or long rest. This is intended to shore up psi knights during a 15 minute adventuring day, sure, but its clunky as all hell.

[MaxWilson]

I'll at least respond to the examples of pure mechanics, but I does look like we have some severe differences in what bothers us. This does make me interested in your view of older editions, and how many of them have feats that read "make a number higher." Stuff like weapon focus (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#weaponFocus).

No comment on 3E, but in AD&D, weapon specialization is something available only to single-classed Fighters, and the rationale is that you've specialized in that weapon to point where you're like an Olympic athlete in that specific weapon compared to a normal fighter. Giving +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and 1/2 extra attack per round strikes me as a reasonable way to model that kind of extreme dedication, and the cost is also pretty reasonable (give up multiclassing and pay double for the weapon proficiency).

At the same time, that's pretty much the only thing in AD&D (2nd edition) that "makes a number go higher." If 3E has a bunch of things that make the number go higher and higher, well, I'll say that seems wrong to me.


Is the problem specifically the mechanical effect or the fact it isn't something anyone can do?

It's about designing the game around raw mechanics, things that exist only for the players and not for the PCs, which obviously undermines roleplaying by moving decision-making into a domain that the PCs are entirely ignorant of and only the players know about. It makes metagaming unavoidable. "Dodging a fireball" is fine, and both players and PCs understand it; "using a Bardic Inspiration Die" is... what?


Because the lore is that "words and music are not just vibrations of air, but vocalizations with power all their own." So in this case your bard is pulling on words of power that distracts an enemy from what they're doing, causing them to bob when they should have weaved (for a saving throw) or give their target a last moment to avoid the blow (for an attack).

But my distaste is for the fact that he's clearly not using words of power because he can use Cutting Words even when he's busy using his mouth for verbal components to a spell while playing a kazoo as an arcane focus for that spell while giving some kind of speech or whatever Bardic Inspiration dice are. Why can he do all these things at once? Because 5E says you get an action, a bonus action, and a reaction in a round, and because "awarding Bardic Inspiration" is "a bonus action" instead of a specific thing that the Bard does. In AD&D, bards can give benefits to other PCs by giving a performance, but it takes a lot more than "a bonus action" to do it--you have to give an actual performance, which takes minutes, not a fraction of a second.

I still allow Cutting Words and Bardic Inspiration but I just frown and imagine it as straight-up Vancian magic, with no fluff about inspiring words or whatever. I'm annoyed but I live with it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Tasha's seems to have a lot of errors for mere oversight, though. For instance, a psi knight has a special feature to allow it to regain a Psionic Energy die as a bonus action. This feature refreshes on a short or long rest. This is intended to shore up psi knights during a 15 minute adventuring day, sure, but its clunky as all hell.

The aforementioned mechanic is no different than using Arcane Recovery, or another ability in the same ilk. Would you consider Arcane Recovery to also be "clunky"?

Is the moniker of a "15 Minute Workday" a means of indicating that many Monks and Battlemaster Fighters Nova during a combat encounter and then immediately wish to follow that combat by taking a Short Rest to recover all the expended KI/Maneuver Dice?

The Psionic Energy Die Recovery Mechanic certainly does not enable Nova + SR strategies....which is fine. The Psi Warrior grants a free use for most abilities of the subclass...so this in combination with being able to recover a Psionic Energy Die every SR, has meant for myself, that I usually have Psionic Energy available.


No comment on 3E, but in AD&D, weapon specialization is something available only to single-classed Fighters, and the rationale is that you've specialized in that weapon to point where you're like an Olympic athlete in that specific weapon compared to a normal fighter.

This was the ideal. Unfortunately 2e AD&D allowed Paladins and Rangers to access Weapon Specialization through Kits, and certain Specialty Priests also had access to Weapon Specialization.

My experience, was by the end of 2e...one saw very few single class fighters anymore....Kits, and other options made available through Skills and Powers, just rendered a Single Class Fighter obsolete...outside of a Dual Classed dip.

Weapon Specialization, (and Double Weapon Specialization in 1e AD&D), could very well be more powerful, in aggregate, than Action Surge, if such a mechanic was included in 5e D&D.

Action Surge is much more fun to use, in my opinion.

Action Surge is a player's way of saying "X Happens Now"
or "This creature dies Now", and is more emotionally satisfying to me in play, than a static +1 hit/+2 Dmg and plus one attack per round,
(Or +3/+3 in the case of Double Weapon Specialization).

[MaxWilson]

This was the ideal. Unfortunately 2e AD&D allowed Paladins and Rangers to access Weapon Specialization through Kits, and certain Specialty Priests also had access to Weapon Specialization.

Are you talking about the Myrmidon in the Complete Fighter's Handbook? I've never found the argument persuasive that it allows paladins or rangers to specialize, since they are explicitly disallowed from specializing and the Myrmidon says nothing that would change that.

If you're talking about some other kit, well, I've never seen it. I don't remember the priest thing you're talking about either so no comment on that one. It could certainly be an overpowered specialty, just like the priesthood of Isis, but maybe it's weak in other ways, and maybe they specialize in weak weapons.

Anyway, the point is that weapon specialization bonuses are a reasonably good model for dedication to mastering a particular weapon. They're not just raw mechanics or numbers for numbers' sake (although later splat books like IIRC Players Option have things like double specialization which IMO are numbers for their own sake; I do not use Players Option for a number of reasons and this is one, just like I do not use Tasha'a for 5E).

[sandmote]

I feel we're starting to get off topic.

The aforementioned mechanic is no different than using Arcane Recovery, or another ability in the same ilk. Would you consider Arcane Recovery to also be "clunky"?
...
The Psionic Energy Die Recovery Mechanic certainly does not enable Nova + SR strategies....which is fine. The Psi Warrior grants a free use for most abilities of the subclass...so this in combination with being able to recover a Psionic Energy Die every SR, has meant for myself, that I usually have Psionic Energy available.The Psi Knight does not recover a Psionic Energy die every short rest. Instead, the Psi Knight regains the ability to regain a Psionic Energy die. You then use that other resource as a bonus action to regain the die.

The fact this functions almost identically to refreshing on a short rest is what I consider clunky. Even if you want to keep it, I'd consider it clearer to break it into two separate items on the feature description, one saying you regain an energy die at the end of a short rest and the other saying you can regain a die as a bonus action once per long rest. I don't think the latter is useful enough to lessen the impact of a 5 minute adventuring day on a Psi Kight's effectiveness, but the way its written is also a mess.


Is the moniker of a "15 Minute Workday" a means of indicating that many Monks and Battlemaster Fighters Nova during a combat encounter and then immediately wish to follow that combat by taking a Short Rest to recover all the expended KI/Maneuver Dice? I wrote "15 minute adventuring day," which was a typo of "5 minute adventuring day." This is reference to the idea (from before 5e) of having the party run one encounter and then immediately go back somewhere safe for a (long) rest. When the party is able to do this, classes balanced around a long rest (casters, usually) are proportionally much stronger than classes balanced around short rests (like 5e fighters and monks) or whose abilities are equally strong every round (like rogues and pre-4e fighters).


No comment on 3E, but in AD&D, weapon specialization is something available only to single-classed Fighters, and the rationale is that you've specialized in that weapon to point where you're like an Olympic athlete in that specific weapon compared to a normal fighter. Giving +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and 1/2 extra attack per round strikes me as a reasonable way to model that kind of extreme dedication, and the cost is also pretty reasonable (give up multiclassing and pay double for the weapon proficiency).

At the same time, that's pretty much the only thing in AD&D (2nd edition) that "makes a number go higher." If 3E has a bunch of things that make the number go higher and higher, well, I'll say that seems wrong to me. Whereas I'm less familiar with AD&D. If the AD&D fighter gets that "1 to hit, +2 to damage, and 1/2 extra attack per round" once and all at once, I see it as reasonable. 3.5e fighters pick this stuff up piecemeal as they level, and they have to choose between that and other bonuses that would open up more flexibility in combat (like continuing to run around after they make an attack).


But my distaste is for the fact that he's clearly not using words of power because he can use Cutting Words even when he's busy using his mouth for verbal components to a spell while playing a kazoo as an arcane focus for that spell while giving some kind of speech or whatever Bardic Inspiration dice are. As far as I'm aware, the verbal components of a spell are used when the spell is cast. I don't think 5e bards are chanting for the duration of a spell or while bardic inspiration lasts. Rather, the magic of the bardic inspiration lasts until expended. For the kazoo thing, I just take it that whatever words can be substituted with the instrument.

Anyway, think I have a reasonable idea of what it is bothers you, so unless I have a severe misunderstanding we can probably let the thread back on topic.

[Willie the Duck]

Are you talking about the Myrmidon in the Complete Fighter's Handbook? I've never found the argument persuasive that it allows paladins or rangers to specialize, since they are explicitly disallowed from specializing and the Myrmidon says nothing that would change that.

Look in your Complete Fighter's Guide. If it has the phrase "Only Fighters (but not paladins or rangers) can take weapon specialties," it is a later printing. In the first couple of printings, there instead was a sentence that indicated that Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers could specialize. For those groups that didn't have anyone buy the later version (and notice the difference) it was pretty conclusive. It did seem like a strange addition, but then again the Complete books weren't shy about changing things up.

[MaxWilson]

As far as I'm aware, the verbal components of a spell are used when the spell is cast. I don't think 5e bards are chanting for the duration of a spell or while bardic inspiration lasts. Rather, the magic of the bardic inspiration lasts until expended. For the kazoo thing, I just take it that whatever words can be substituted with the instrument.

The whole round happens in six seconds. That's just not enough time for one mouth to plausibly do all those things. If I could rewrite Bardic Inspiration it would be to make it a pep talk that takes ten minutes to award (to however many people you want), but last up to twenty-four hours instead of ten minutes. Instead I just grimace and try to ignore the PHB fluff and pretend it's just bardic Vancian magic where the Bard says "Shazam!" or something and makes the recipient lucky for a while.

But yeah, we can let it rest.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Look in your Complete Fighter's Guide. If it has the phrase "Only Fighters (but not paladins or rangers) can take weapon specialties," it is a later printing. In the first couple of printings, there instead was a sentence that indicated that Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers could specialize. For those groups that didn't have anyone buy the later version (and notice the difference) it was pretty conclusive. It did seem like a strange addition, but then again the Complete books weren't shy about changing things up.

Thank you for that informative post! I was unaware of this. The 1st printing of the Complete Fighter's Guide unequivocally broadened whom could take Weapon Specializations.