Vecna Playtest Notes

[Sulicius]

This wasn’t an end of campaign game…it was a playtest.

I elected to not prepare the Gate spell, as a cleric, because the whole point of the endeavor was to try out PCs fighting Vecna, (and have fun), and bringing Gated in Allies, like Bahumut in conjunction with previously Planar Bound allies, is counter to that premise.

In a real game, all of that would have been brought to bear, with a Divine Intervention for another Gate like effect.

And Vecna can cast the Gate spell too? He could probably ask a favour from Orcus after he helped the devil move a couple months back. The Gate spell doesn’t allow a player to summon a god, that is not how the spell is worded. I get what you’re saying, but this is another spell that is controlled by DM’s choice.



We could have all played Hexvokers with Simulacrums, with synchronized Readied Actions to cast Upcast Maximized Magic Missiles at Vecna, after Vecna had Dread Counterspelled something else on the turn.


But you didn’t because that is not how people play the game. You didn’t because metagaming the perfect characters to kill a monster in D&D and duplicating them is boring. You can kill any monster with that. And yeah, go ahead and change Vecna in that case. It is what the DM is supposed to do.



If people want to discount the Playtest, either partially or entirely, they are free to do so, and I respect that.

I think there are more than a few people that would elect to never play in a game where a DM is going to ad hoc disallow Wish to work, because they want their Big Bad to go three rounds.

Hallow is not the only effect that has teleportation/extra planar blocking properties…Forbiddance does as well..the spell has no Saving Throws and does 5d10 to the Lich, the Archdevil, and the Undead Servitors.

The RAW wording of Forbiddance is a bit trickier then Hallow’s language, and the combat would not have lasted the 8 rounds it did, if Vecna and crew were stuck in a 40,000 square foot prison, taking 5d10 damage each round, no save allowed.


I wouldn’t disallow Wish to work, I would just tell the players that they won. I would congratulate them on wasting my prep time because they used specific game mechanics to ignore a boss’ abilities. I have been in many situations where certain spells ended encounters in a way that was dissatisfying to me. It grinds you down. The players find a way to play that is unilaterally effective, and they can whip it out any time they are in actual danger. And then they win.

So instead of having players exploit such mechanics, I just tell them no. And then we actually play D&D, where a fight is back and forthC and the players feel like they are in more danger than they are. So far, they have been able to still beat everything I have thrown at them, and they enjoyed it. And I enjoyed it.

Is there any other DM who enjoys having their boss monsters get gimped because of such strategies?

I don’t care about another spell that you wish or divine intervention into a one action cast, I wouldn’t allow it at my table. I want my players to beat up Vecna, and not fight the very game mechanics the monsters are built on.

I want my monsters and my players to use abilities and tactics that have strengths and weaknesses. I want them to be able to succeed in specific circumstances when they took the information they learned as characters from the world. That is why I don’t want to give Vecna blindsight and the shield spell. It just makes sure that the players can’t experiment with fog cloud and other cover that goes both ways. If Vecna has blindsight, then he should always have two dozen wizards casting fog cloud wherever he goes, as that is the most safe way for him to win. That just makes the battle be all about vision, and not about killing a lich.

EDIT: I thought about it a bit, and I think we agree on a lot more than I think. About the divine intervention thing and the wish thing, this would either be a session 0 talk with the players. If not then, then it would be something discussed after the first time they used such tactics. DM expectations, player expectations, etc. It would indeed be poor form to cancel something a player does. I always allow my players to do their turn over if something they thought was possible, wasn’t. That’s usually the case when they didn’t read a spell right or something. I also think it would be poor form for a player to assume they can choose a spell with divine intervention without talking about it to the DM.

[Angelalex242]

Meh, wish. If you're not smiting the holy hell out of Vecna with you shiny Holy Avenger, are you even killing him? :smallcool:

[x3n0n]

We are not using basic rules, we are using core rules, an encounter have to be balanced for full core (PHB MM DMG) and I didn't said all, neither 100 resourceless nor DPR, I said it is expected that a level 20 character can pull 100 damage on a given turn, either going nova or getting a lucky crit or whatever method is available to them. And I think it is a fair assumption

Ok, that makes sense.

I had misinterpreted the quote about a "given" turn as meaning that you expected any 20th-level character to reliably deal 100 damage to a Vecna-like target on any turn/round of their choice, on demand. (If they can't reliably do it on demand, then I don't see why we should expect a 3-PC team to kill Vecna between his turns. Otherwise, you might get one burst and two non-bursts, and Vecna heals much of the damage.)

FWIW, I think "PHB with no optional rules" (i.e., no feats, no multiclassing) yields similar numbers to Basic Rules for single-martial damage output, in the absence of cherry-picked magic items. The wider variety of spells does open up better buffs that someone can apply to the Fighter (e.g., something that adds at least one damage die to every hit).

(I also don't disagree with your overall assessment of that particular weakness: his AC and base HP are significantly lower than other CR 25+ monsters, which makes him more vulnerable to nova damage than expected unless his reaction teleport can get him reliably out of the damage zone so he can regenerate the next turn.)

[da newt]

I played a Vecna Tower one shot last night with a party of 3 lvl 20 PCs (drakewarden ranger, some new artificer subclass, and my V.Pali). Our builds aren't high power and our tactics are rudimentary ...

Vecna toyed with us like a cat torturing a caught mouse. Even in a 50x80 room (with another room attached), and a prebuff upcast spirit shroud (and a failed dispell), I couldn't lock him down for more than 1 hit per round even after I burned a round assuming my angel form for 60' fly speed. I spent the whole encounter chasing and dying of paper cuts while he slowly ground the other two down, and he was just using basic maneuvering tactics against us. I didn't lean into misty step like I should have.

(also the room reduced all healing to 1/2, and there were lair actions like summon shadows, and the whole tower does ~18 necrotic damage to all celestials every round so my pegasus was long gone, and this BBEG encounter was after a few lesser encounters so we had used some resources ... oh and we kinda suck at DnD too)

Due to this stat block's 3 reactions / turn, plus BA + action + 2 stabs, plus immunities and resistances, plus lego resistances, he does make for a formidable opponent but not an awesomely powerful one. But then again this isn't full grown Vecna - this is a version of him a coupe steps below his ultimate power.

With the way this version is built, his action economy is maxed vs a party of 3 and goes way down as the party size increases, he's vulnerable to ranged martial attacks, he relies on vision, and if you can stop his healing - he's much weaker.

[Psyren]

This wasn’t an end of campaign game…it was a playtest.

I elected to not prepare the Gate spell, as a cleric, because the whole point of the endeavor was to try out PCs fighting Vecna, (and have fun), and bringing Gated in Allies, like Bahumut in conjunction with previously Planar Bound allies, is counter to that premise.

In a real game, all of that would have been brought to bear, with a Divine Intervention for another Gate like effect.

We could have all played Hexvokers with Simulacrums, with synchronized Readied Actions to cast Upcast Maximized Magic Missiles at Vecna, after Vecna had Dread Counterspelled something else on the turn.

If people want to discount the Playtest, either partially or entirely, they are free to do so, and I respect that.

I think there are more than a few people that would elect to never play in a game where a DM is going to ad hoc disallow Wish to work, because they want their Big Bad to go three rounds.

Hallow is not the only effect that has teleportation/extra planar blocking properties…Forbiddance does as well..the spell has no Saving Throws and does 5d10 to the Lich, the Archdevil, and the Undead Servitors.

The RAW wording of Forbiddance is a bit trickier then Hallow’s language, and the combat would not have lasted the 8 rounds it did, if Vecna and crew were stuck in a 40,000 square foot prison, taking 5d10 damage each round, no save allowed.

You don't have to "disallow Wish" to counter the strategy in the OP. You can just set the fight in a building. Or add some backup dispellers from the army that his command tent was supposed to be near, because that's generally the point of a command tent.

[Thunderous Mojo]

You don't have to "disallow Wish" to counter the strategy in the OP. You can just set the fight in a building. Or add some backup dispellers from the army that his command tent was supposed to be near, because that's generally the point of a command tent.

Sure, you have made that point, (repeatedly).
I don’t think the proverbial horse, can be raised as a zombie, anymore,
(the flesh is gone).🃏

You are correct, however, one can almost never have an excess capacity for certain things such as Fireball and Counterspell.

That is one of the issues we noticed with the MPMoM Wizard type statblocks, No Counterspell options. A more PC Wizard type block, with custom spell list and spell slots..would be better positioned to support Vecna.

Again, I don’t think it is unreasonable, that a successful surprise ambush of Vecna results in only having to battle Vecna, an Arch-Devil, and two mid-Tier CR Wizardly Flunkies….for a test of the statblocks.

It is a standard plot device, at some point the villain becomes isolated with the heroes and: FIGHT!

Every Sith Lord in Star Wars is at some point isolated and fights someone, One on One or two on One.

[Rafaelfras]

Ok, that makes sense.

I had misinterpreted the quote about a "given" turn as meaning that you expected any 20th-level character to reliably deal 100 damage to a Vecna-like target on any turn/round of their choice, on demand. (If they can't reliably do it on demand, then I don't see why we should expect a 3-PC team to kill Vecna between his turns. Otherwise, you might get one burst and two non-bursts, and Vecna heals much of the damage.)

FWIW, I think "PHB with no optional rules" (i.e., no feats, no multiclassing) yields similar numbers to Basic Rules for single-martial damage output, in the absence of cherry-picked magic items. The wider variety of spells does open up better buffs that someone can apply to the Fighter (e.g., something that adds at least one damage die to every hit).

(I also don't disagree with your overall assessment of that particular weakness: his AC and base HP are significantly lower than other CR 25+ monsters, which makes him more vulnerable to nova damage than expected unless his reaction teleport can get him reliably out of the damage zone so he can regenerate the next turn.)

Thank you I'm happy I got my point across and we can agree on some of then


Sure, you have made that point, (repeatedly).
I don’t think the proverbial horse, can be raised as a zombie, anymore,
(the flesh is gone).🃏

You are correct, however, one can almost never have an excess capacity for certain things such as Fireball and Counterspell.

That is one of the issues we noticed with the MPMoM Wizard type statblocks, No Counterspell options. A more PC Wizard type block, with custom spell list and spell slots..would be better positioned to support Vecna.

Again, I don’t think it is unreasonable, that a successful surprise ambush of Vecna results in only having to battle Vecna, an Arch-Devil, and two mid-Tier CR Wizardly Flunkies….for a test of the statblocks.

It is a standard plot device, at some point the villain becomes isolated with the heroes and: FIGHT!

Every Sith Lord in Star Wars is at some point isolated and fights someone, One on One or two on One.

I completely agree. I think your scenario is very well into the realm of possibilities. And it is a very common setup for a BBEG
Also as a DM I would allow druid grove even if it was inside a dungeon. You are casting wish not druid grove, if wish can skip 24 hours casting time it can also pass restrictions from the spell, but as some people pointed out wish: guards and wards would give you the same result so outside or inside woundnt make any difference




But more generally, I will say that I'm not entirely sure what standards folks are looking bosses to meet? Are they supposed to just not be soloable by level appropriate characters (outside of flukes like the Paladin rolling 3 crits in a row?) or something more? I mean, a pretty optimized and fresh level 20 party ought to be able to have a reasonable expectation of winning against any boss in the game. If they don't, then don't bother to stat the boss out.

For my part there are 2 standards I am looking for. A boss and a Uber lich
For a boss cr26 for me it has to be something that is impossible for a single 20 level character to solo, no matter the build (excluding ofc things that break the game at any instance) and a party of 4 20 level characters will have a hard time doing it.
For me this stats block do not meet this standart for reason I already pointed out, ofc I can change my mind after testing myself (and I already decided how to do it, but it will depend upon my next group reunion and that can take a while) and decide that he is strong enough numbers wise, but again based on my experience on tunning encounters for larger parties he is very weak.
The second standart I am looking for is what I expect from a block that should represent an Uber lich, on this he fails completely because the new design WoTC decided to follow. In my opinion this design is simply incapable of doing a good spellcasting monster, boss or otherwise.
I don't think the monster design looked without context is bad, I intend to use it for my BBEG that will fit on a spell blade archetype. But for a lich? No that's not what I am looking for.

[OvisCaedo]

I'm not actually convinced that Guards and Wards grants the same kind of one-sided vision exploit Druid's Grove does, either. You can have designated creatures immune to the spell's effects, but is an area being filled with fog really an effect on the creatures rather than the area? Druid grove is explicit about immune creatures also being able to see through the fog clearly. Guards and Wards also seems to only fill *corridors* with fog, though I suppose you can use the two stinking clouds as fog in rooms. But I generally wouldn't expect "immune to the effects of stinking cloud" to also mean "you can see through it clearly".

Druid grove (and, if you argue it, I suppose guards and wards) are just very uniquely broken effects in a game where such a massive number of spells and special abilities have language requiring sight. That's more of an issue with the spells than any individual creature's stat block.

[Psyren]

It is a standard plot device, at some point the villain becomes isolated with the heroes and: FIGHT!

One control spell followed by endless counterspelling isn't much of a FIGHT, that's why those plots generally don't do that.


Sure, you have made that point, (repeatedly).
I don’t think the proverbial horse, can be raised as a zombie, anymore,
(the flesh is gone).🃏

If you know that, why repeat hyperbole like "disallowing wish?"



wish: guards and wards would give you the same result so outside or inside woundnt make any difference

Most boss fights don't happen in a corridor either.

[Thunderous Mojo]

One control spell followed by endless counterspelling isn't much of a FIGHT, that's why those plots generally don't do that.

{Scrubbed}

In the interest, of promoting constructive participation in the thread, how about you share your ideal Vecna playtest, Psyren?

{Scrubbed}

[Sulicius]

Next week I will unleash Vecna on a party again, this time all the characters are made at lvl20.

I gave them restrictions based on the books I have, and no spells cast with wish can be longer than one action.

Should be fun!

[Rafaelfras]

Next week I will unleash Vecna on a party again, this time all the characters are made at lvl20.

I gave them restrictions based on the books I have, and no spells cast with wish can be longer than one action.

Should be fun!

Good luck on your endeavor! May it be fun.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Next week I will unleash Vecna on a party again, this time all the characters are made at lvl20.

I gave them restrictions based on the books I have, and no spells cast with wish can be longer than one action.

Should be fun!

Seems like an arbitrary restriction meant to punish player creativity, but sure, I'm excited to see how it goes.

[Angelalex242]

I imagine there's several ways to skin a Vecna shaped cat. However, like any megaboss, eventually an optimized strategy will be found that isn't reliant on having specific magic items or people in the party.

[Sulicius]

Seems like an arbitrary restriction meant to punish player creativity, but sure, I'm excited to see how it goes.

Not arbitrary at all. There’s a reason those spells have a casting time of one action normally. We’ve been over this in this thread.

Player creativity =/= abusing mechanics to wreck an encounter.

If they want to cast something with a longer casting time, they can do so normally.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Not arbitrary at all. There’s a reason those spells have a casting time of one action normally. We’ve been over this in this thread.

Player creativity =/= abusing mechanics to wreck an encounter.

If they want to cast something with a longer casting time, they can do so normally.

It's not abusing anything, Wish just happens. It's the pinnacle of mortal magic, if you're adding "except spells with a casting time longer than one action" you're taking Wish, the 9th level spell, and giving it arbitrary restrictions in line with Limited Wish, the Genie Warlock ability that does limit the ability explicitly in that way.

There is a reason Wish (the spell) lacks the same limitations - it's not intended to have them. I fail to find your reasoning compelling as anything but arbitrary and a dislike for a player being able to use a broader set of options.

Do you also find that Magic Items that change the casting time of certain spells to be unfair or "abusing mechanics"? Necklace of Prayer Beads can be used to cast Wind Walk or Planar Ally as a bonus action, is that abuse?

Hell, Vecna himself has Animate Dead and Scrying cast as an action. You're telling me that if left no other options you wouldn't let a player Wish (the mightiest mortal spell, pinnacle of all mortal magic) for Scrying if they really desperately needed it?

[Sulicius]

It's not abusing anything, Wish just happens. It's the pinnacle of mortal magic, if you're adding "except spells with a casting time longer than one action" you're taking Wish, the 9th level spell, and giving it arbitrary restrictions in line with Limited Wish, the Genie Warlock ability that does limit the ability explicitly in that way.

There is a reason Wish (the spell) lacks the same limitations - it's not intended to have them.

And I intend not to allow it as the DM.

I don’t want my players to cast Druid’s Grove, Hallow or any such spells with an action.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And I intend not to allow it as the DM.

I don’t want my players to cast Druid’s Grove, Hallow or any such spells with an action.

Well then I'll repeat it again - that's an entirely arbitrary restriction, purely targeting players who intended to use those effects in a meaningful way where they would be impactful (read - creatively used) and I don't really understand why you'd make such a decision.

But, that's your right as the DM, I just think it's incredibly lame and a borderline hostile action against your players. Limiting actual mechanical abuse is one thing, such as in the case of Wishing for Simulacrum to avoid its intended limitations, this is simply something else. I genuinely don't understand what good reason you might have. This just smacks of a knee jerk reaction on how a critical weakness of spellcasters was exploited and now you're locking Wish out of casting spells like Heroes Feast or Magnificent Mansion... or you know, Alarm. Can't have the mightiest mortal spell able to quicken the process of casting Alarm, that would be OP.

[Kane0]

Just have wish replicate the spell at its casting time rather than overwriting it to be an action. Wish can still be any spell, just not faster.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just have wish replicate the spell at its casting time rather than overwriting it to be an action. Wish can still be any spell, just not faster.

Slightly more reasonable, still not a fan but at least it's not simply target locking options.

[Sulicius]

Well then I'll repeat it again - that's an entirely arbitrary restriction, purely targeting players who intended to use those effects in a meaningful way where they would be impactful (read - creatively used) and I don't really understand why you'd make such a decision.

But, that's your right as the DM, I just think it's incredibly lame and a borderline hostile action against your players. Limiting actual mechanical abuse is one thing, such as in the case of Wishing for Simulacrum to avoid its intended limitations, this is simply something else. I genuinely don't understand what good reason you might have.

It’s very easy to understand.

A lot of spells have a casting time of more than one action. These are spells designed not to be cast in the middle of combat.

As shown in this thread, some of those spells can significantly halt Vecna (and most other creatures relying on sight) in his ability to do the things he is built to do. This isn’t fun for me. All it shows is that wish is broken, which we already know. In order to rein things in, I decided on a very simple alteration to the wish spell. It is clear wording and it can stop any such rule abuse that comes into play with spells that require a casting time of more than one action.

Borderline lame and borderline hostile? What the **** are you talking about? It’s just some game rules. I am not cruel to the players in any way. Have you been on forums for so long that you forget what it is like to actually be hostile? Is it hostile to spend four hours with strangers who would otherwise never get the chance to fight this version of the classic D&D villain Vecna? Is it lame to run a game in a way I like, with house rules that improve it to that end?

Oh, am I restricting the poor players? Am I not allowing them to ruin the fun for me I spent six hours preparing? Boo-hoo. So many people on this forum believe that a DM should be outside of the game, like an AI that works on RAW and should be happy to swallow any ****ty rules interactions that pop up from the hundreds and hundreds of spell/feature/item interactions. They really don’t. If I have players with the intent to abuse these things, I will talk to them about it. If they think that is the most fun way to play D&D, I will tell them that it is not fun for me. If they call me lame and hostile? Then I will not include them in my game.

My players can still cast wish and do cool stuff with it. I placed a well worded alteration to the spell to save me some trouble.

Don’t you wish your boss fights were fun for everyone?

[Sulicius]

Just have wish replicate the spell at its casting time rather than overwriting it to be an action. Wish can still be any spell, just not faster.

That’s a great suggestion! I will definitely use that in the future, thanks. For now I already let them create their characters and they haven’t brought them wish up, but if they do I will ask if they like your alteration more.

It’s only for a one-shot with people I have played little with, so I’m not gonna confuse them with rules changes just yet.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It’s very easy to understand.

A lot of spells have a casting time of more than one action. These are spells designed not to be cast in the middle of combat.

As shown in this thread, some of those spells can significantly halt Vecna (and most other creatures relying on sight) in his ability to do the things he is built to do. This isn’t fun for me. All it shows is that wish is broken, which we already know. In order to rein things in, I decided on a very simple alteration to the wish spell. It is clear wording and it can stop any such rule abuse that comes into play with spells that require a casting time of more than one action.

Borderline lame and borderline hostile? What the **** are you talking about? It’s just some game rules. I am not cruel to the players in any way. Have you been on forums for so long that you forget what it is like to actually be hostile? Is it hostile to spend four hours with strangers who would otherwise never get the chance to fight this version of the classic D&D villain Vecna? Is it lame to run a game in a way I like, with house rules that improve it to that end?

Oh, am I restricting the poor players? Am I not allowing them to ruin the fun for me I spent six hours preparing? Boo-hoo. So many people on this forum believe that a DM should be outside of the game, like an AI that works on RAW and should be happy to swallow any ****ty rules interactions that pop up from the hundreds and hundreds of spell/feature/item interactions. They really don’t. If I have players with the intent to abuse these things, I will talk to them about it. If they think that is the most fun way to play D&D, I will tell them that it is not fun for me. If they call me lame and hostile? Then I will not include them in my game.

My players can still cast wish and do cool stuff with it. I placed a well worded alteration to the spell to save me some trouble.

Don’t you wish your boss fights were fun for everyone?

So you're telling me you play DND to win against your players?

I don't understand - the goal is for the players to defeat Vecna, and for Vecna to put up the best fight possible against that, potentially causing them to fail. This should be done through Vecna's ability, not DM fiat to erase options that are effective against Vecna.

Seems like a very adversarial DMing style here. Perhaps Pex is rubbing off on me.

Side note - they put Wish in the same book they put half those spells in, if they didn't intend for Wish to be able to replicate them they would have said so. This is not a compelling argument, just say you don't like that a player can spend the one 9th level spell they have to activate an effect that inconveniences your boss monster.

On the last sentence - they are, even when the boss is overcome through careful planning and preparation that leads to a less than 5 round combat encounter everyone had fun because they succeeded. My players didn't complain that Strahd was a pushover by the time they fought him because they hated him, they hated his guts and they hated how he treated the people of Barovia. I didn't complain when we killed a greatwyrm altered Klauth in 5 terms because it was the culmination of weeks of preparation in and out of game and when executed it worked. Something I've learned is that not everyone wants a long drawn out climactic battle, sometimes one side just gets crushed. The Vox Machina encounter with a definitively stronger God Vecna might have been over 7 hours of irl game time but the combat was only 8 rounds long. They sealed a god in less than a minute.

[Sulicius]

So you're telling me you play DND to win against your players?

I don't understand - the goal is for the players to defeat Vecna, and for Vecna to put up the best fight possible against that, potentially causing them to fail. This should be done through Vecna's ability, not DM fiat to erase options that are effective against Vecna.

Seems like a very adversarial DMing style here. Perhaps Pex is rubbing off on me.

Side note - they put Wish in the same book they put half those spells in, if they didn't intend for Wish to be able to replicate them they would have said so. This is not a compelling argument, just say you don't like that a player can spend the one 9th level spell they have to activate an effect that inconveniences your boss monster.

On the last sentence - they are, even when the boss is overcome through careful planning and preparation that leads to a less than 5 round combat encounter everyone had fun because they succeeded. My players didn't complain that Strahd was a pushover by the time they fought him because they hated him, they hated his guts and they hated how he treated the people of Barovia. I didn't complain when we killed a greatwyrm altered Klauth in 5 terms because it was the culmination of weeks of preparation in and out of game and when executed it worked. Something I've learned is that not everyone wants a long drawn out climactic battle, sometimes one side just gets crushed. The Vox Machina encounter with a definitively stronger God Vecna might have been over 7 hours of irl game time but the combat was only 8 rounds long. They sealed a god in less than a minute.

I think we agree! These players didn’t have the trials and tribulations that will have them run into the villain’s plots for months of sessions. Most haven’t even played a lvl20 character in 5E. I love it when the players make a plan to thwart the enemy with careful planning and preparation, but these players haven’t. They want to fight Vecna. They don’t want to fight a limp bundle of evil bones just because one player casts one spell. In-world preparation is awesome when you have the sessions to do so.

And when it comes to winning, isn’t this whole thread filled with people explaining Vecna is weak without using the wish spell in this way? I have lost every boss fight my weekly group fought for two years. All I am trying to do is to give them a fight where there is some back and forth, some drama and a chance to use their abilities. On the ENworld forums, I saw a 20th level party use the grapple + Antimatic field combo, after which they burned vecna to death with torches in 20 turns. That is not how I want to play D&D. My players win, but they win by working together and making epic moves.

Now in all honesty, last week I beat my players with Vecna. One player cancelled at the last moment, and there were only 3 pc’s. Because I was convinced by people on the forums that Vecna was weak, I did not alter his power. Vecna dominated the barbarian at a key moment, and the other two fled the dungeon. That wasn’t fun for me. I wanted them to defeat Vecna. So this week I have 4 players, and I will make some of the encounters in the dungeon easier. I will probably take away the Book of Vile Datkness from Vecna to rein him in. We’ll see where things go.

But please, join the next time I run this dungeon! It is hard to understand what someone DM’ing style is like when you only attack one small house rule (:

[Dork_Forge]

Just for the record I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict Wish, especially since it's effects have already been noted.

There are a handful of spells that are clearly outside the bounds of the rest of the game, which distort it unlike other things. Wish is certainly one of those things, and replacing long-duration castings with an action is certainly one way it does so.

There's also nothing particularly interesting about seeing another report about how Wish disabled x y or z by using spells that clearly were not intended for mid-combat casting. The majority of players aren't going to do it, it would be devastating against many statblocks, we've already seen what happens when it is used, so let's see what else can happen in a playtest.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just for the record I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict Wish, especially since it's effects have already been noted.

There are a handful of spells that are clearly outside the bounds of the rest of the game, which distort it unlike other things. Wish is certainly one of those things, and replacing long-duration castings with an action is certainly one way it does so.

There's also nothing particularly interesting about seeing another report about how Wish disabled x y or z by using spells that clearly were not intended for mid-combat casting. The majority of players aren't going to do it, it would be devastating against many statblocks, we've already seen what happens when it is used, so let's see what else can happen in a playtest.

I'd argue that an effect like this is intentionally powerful, it's a once per day effect that only t4 characters can accomplish regularly.

I'll admit now though, I was being shortsighted. The fact that we already know that Wish is fully capable of leading into Vecna's defeat is a very good reason to restrict Wish in this type of playtest. Apologies @Sulicius.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The majority of players aren't going to do it, it would be devastating against many statblocks, we've already seen what happens when it is used, so let's see what else can happen in a playtest.

The majority of players based off DND Beyond information do not make it past 10-13th level. Most players won’t ever encounter Vecna, or cast a spell beyond a 7th level slot.

My suspicion, by dint of being a CR 26, most player’s that face Vecna will, likely, have spent some time thinking about their spells.

DF, you might remember the time on a Discord server, when I claimed that using Hex or Enhance Ability, or Portent to Initiative Spike was a bit of a ‘deep dive’ of the rules.

You, rightfully, pointed out that Initiative being Dexterity Checks, and the implications of that are detailed in multiple places in the PHB. Anyone, reading the rules would be exposed to the concept.

Facing Vecna, in a campaign, would likely mean the person has played at least for one year, to go from Tier 1 to Tier 4. As has been pointed out multiple times, it isn’t exactly a secret that disrupting a creature’s ability to target others, is almost, universally, a ‘bad thing’(TM) for it.

[Dork_Forge]

The majority of players based off DND Beyond information do not make it past 10-13th level. Most players won’t ever encounter Vecna, or cast a spell beyond a 7th level slot.

My suspicion, by dint of being a CR 26, most player’s that face Vecna will, likely, have spent some time thinking about their spells.

DF, you might remember the time on a Discord server, when I claimed that using Hex or Enhance Ability, or Portent to Initiative Spike was a bit of a ‘deep dive’ of the rules.

You, rightfully, pointed out that Initiative being Dexterity Checks, and the implications of that are detailed in multiple places in the PHB. Anyone, reading the rules would be exposed to the concept.

Facing Vecna, in a campaign, would likely mean the person has played at least for one year, to go from Tier 1 to Tier 4. As has been pointed out multiple times, it isn’t exactly a secret that disrupting a creature’s ability to target others, is almost, universally, a ‘bad thing’(TM) for it.

By most players, in this context, I mean most players facing Vecna rather than most players of the game at large.

And I don't disagree that players at that level would give consideration to their spells, but I think it's also fair that most people playing at this level have a good chance of falling into one of these categories:

1) Don't have Wish

2) Don't review every spell list, the spells that really got to Vecna came from the Druid and Cleric list, with Druid Grove being (IMO) a fairly obscure XGtE

3) Don't realise the tactical implications of a spell like Druid Grove

4) End up choosing a different kind of spell to shorten, Wishing for a Simulacrum is a more obvious tactic, for example

To also address the concept of a player facing Vecna at the end of a long term campaign: the implications of 9th level spells are going to be the least affected by long term play. With the PCs being most familiar and comfortable with everything that came before it, through virtue of having it longer and relying on it more than their shiny new 9th level slot, which they may even prefer to cast other 9th level spells with, such as Foresight.

And to just circle back to this part:


As has been pointed out multiple times, it isn’t exactly a secret that disrupting a creature’s ability to target others, is almost, universally, a ‘bad thing’(TM) for it.

The concept of disrupting targeting is one thing, being able to do that without compromising your party, and against a creature with Truesight, is another ballgame that I think should be recognised.

[Psyren]

Just for the record I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict Wish, especially since it's effects have already been noted.

There are a handful of spells that are clearly outside the bounds of the rest of the game, which distort it unlike other things. Wish is certainly one of those things, and replacing long-duration castings with an action is certainly one way it does so.

There's also nothing particularly interesting about seeing another report about how Wish disabled x y or z by using spells that clearly were not intended for mid-combat casting. The majority of players aren't going to do it, it would be devastating against many statblocks, we've already seen what happens when it is used, so let's see what else can happen in a playtest.

Agreed. If nothing else, it provides no new/interesting information to resort to this tactic again.

But even if you don't restrict Wish itself, both Druid's Grove and Guards and Wards have other restrictions on their use that a savvy foe like Vecna can reasonably plan around. In fact, I'd expect him to be versed on all the ways of magically generating one-way-vision; he has +22 Arcana after all. He would likely be all too cognizant of how much his own magical toolkit (both offense and defense) is dependent on being able to see his assailants, or at the very least being just as concealed as they are.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Agreed. If nothing else, it provides no new/interesting information to resort to this tactic again..

We have not seen new information in this thread in quite some time.
As I pointed out before, give Vecna a Crystal Ball, and they can bedevil players with Dread Counterspell from another world, if need be.

One of the most powerful mortal spellcaster’s should probably have Wish, or an Anyspell type ability in their statblock.

We can put a pin in discussing an effective tactic, but let’s acknowledge it is effective first, then move on.

[Anymage]

But even if you don't restrict Wish itself, both Druid's Grove and Guards and Wards have other restrictions on their use that a savvy foe like Vecna can reasonably plan around. In fact, I'd expect him to be versed on all the ways of magically generating one-way-vision; he has +22 Arcana after all. He would likely be all too cognizant of how much his own magical toolkit (both offense and defense) is dependent on being able to see his assailants, or at the very least being just as concealed as they are.


One of the most powerful mortal spellcasterÂ’s should probably have Wish, or an Anyspell type ability in their statblock.

The problem with both of these is that they depend on the DM to have sufficient rules mastery to capitalize on. Knowing how to counter Druid Grove when there's an active counterspeller keeping pressure on you can be hard for a DM to think of in the moment, and pulling just the right spell out of an anyspell effect similarly depends on the DM having sufficient knowledge of what effects might be in place. Plus depending on wording, an anyspell might well result in Vecna dropping a Druid Grove on the party and that's going to make a hash of CR in the opposite direction.

I do think it's fair to acknowledge that action denial in general is a really strong tactic that can largely bypass a creature's stats. Both denying sight and locking Vecna down with counterspells, and keeping him grappled and stuck in an AMF. Can't think what would be good hard rules to acknowledge a "we know action denial can beat Vecna, let's try without that" playtest.

[Psyren]

We can put a pin in discussing an effective tactic, but let’s acknowledge it is effective first, then move on.

I agree - which is why my very first post in the thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?647054-Vecna-Playtest-Notes&p=25498763&viewfull=1#post25498763) DID acknowledge how effective asymmetrical vision denial is in 5e :smallconfused: if my stance on that tactic wasn't clear before, hopefully it is now.



One of the most powerful mortal spellcaster’s should probably have Wish, or an Anyspell type ability in their statblock.

He can if you want him to, via the BoVD embedded in his body.


The problem with both of these is that they depend on the DM to have sufficient rules mastery to capitalize on. Knowing how to counter Druid Grove when there's an active counterspeller keeping pressure on you can be hard for a DM to think of in the moment, and pulling just the right spell out of an anyspell effect similarly depends on the DM having sufficient knowledge of what effects might be in place. Plus depending on wording, an anyspell might well result in Vecna dropping a Druid Grove on the party and that's going to make a hash of CR in the opposite direction.

I do think it's fair to acknowledge that action denial in general is a really strong tactic that can largely bypass a creature's stats. Both denying sight and locking Vecna down with counterspells, and keeping him grappled and stuck in an AMF. Can't think what would be good hard rules to acknowledge a "we know action denial can beat Vecna, let's try without that" playtest.

To reiterate, it's not merely "denying sight" that's the silver-bullet here, it's "one-way sight." The spells that grant that are generally not usable in combat, as well as having additional restrictions on the location where they can be employed.

If the sight-denial worked in both directions, Vecna would have been fine to spam his at-will dispel at his shoes until the effect was gone, without being counterspelled. A fighter with Blind Fighting might have been able to get in some decent cheap shots in on him during that time, but he wouldn't have been totally hosed either.

[Thunderous Mojo]

10’ Blindsight is an available option for any PC that has access to feats, and is in a game that allows options from TCoE.

A Bat Familiar can also grant a PC Blindsight.

[Psyren]

10’ Blindsight is an available option for any PC that has access to feats, and is in a game that allows options from TCoE.

A Bat Familiar can also grant a PC Blindsight.

No argument here but I'm not sure what you're getting at. A 10ft. counterspell is not nearly as useful as the standard 60ft.

[Rafaelfras]

No argument here but I'm not sure what you're getting at. A 10ft. counterspell is not nearly as useful as the standard 60ft.

He is saying players can get asymmetrical vision very easily getting blind sight with some of these methods and then using a spell like darkness or fog that are 1 action cast time

[Psyren]

He is saying players can get asymmetrical vision very easily getting blind sight with some of these methods and then using a spell like darkness or fog that are 1 action cast time

My point is that lasts until Vecna moves 15ft, then it's symmetrical again. Unless all the counterspellers in the party climb into his belt pouch, it's not nearly as reliable as the WishDG approach.

[Angelalex242]

Perhaps I may provide a more balanced idea?

Wish can replicate any spell as an action, but if the spell normally has a longer casting time, then it counts as a 'powerful effect' with the 1/3 chance of losing it. If the player slows down and uses wish at the normal casting time, then he doesn't suffer the 'powerful effect' penalty.

[Sulicius]

Perhaps I may provide a more balanced idea?

Wish can replicate any spell as an action, but if the spell normally has a longer casting time, then it counts as a 'powerful effect' with the 1/3 chance of losing it. If the player slows down and uses wish at the normal casting time, then he doesn't suffer the 'powerful effect' penalty.

This just sounds worse for everyone involved.

[Kashew]

Perhaps I may provide a more balanced idea?

Wish can replicate any spell as an action, but if the spell normally has a longer casting time, then it counts as a 'powerful effect' with the 1/3 chance of losing it. If the player slows down and uses wish at the normal casting time, then he doesn't suffer the 'powerful effect' penalty.
I really like this idea, and I'm chiming in just to let you know that someone out in the world thinks that this strikes a good balance.

[Sulicius]

I really like this idea, and I'm chiming in just to let you know that someone out in the world thinks that this strikes a good balance.

It doesn’t solve the original problem, and it gives the player a chance to waste their 9th level spell. The DM then also has to determine what these arbitrary “powerful effects” are.

How is this an improvement? It doesn’t solve the problem, makes wish less clear in its wording and makes it worse for the player.

[Angelalex242]

It doesn’t solve the original problem, and it gives the player a chance to waste their 9th level spell. The DM then also has to determine what these arbitrary “powerful effects” are.

How is this an improvement? It doesn’t solve the problem, makes wish less clear in its wording and makes it worse for the player.

No. You don't have a chance to waste your 9th level spell slot. You have a chance to FOREVER LOSE the ability to cast Wish. If you fail the 1/3 roll, the spell still goes off like you want it to, but you've wished your last wish.

[Sulicius]

No. You don't have a chance to waste your 9th level spell slot. You have a chance to FOREVER LOSE the ability to cast Wish. If you fail the 1/3 roll, the spell still goes off like you want it to, but you've wished your last wish.

Oh, even worse then. So both the spell works like I don’t want it to, and the player loses the ability to cast it.

[Angelalex242]

Huh. It seems my idea is actually just a straight nerf of wish. It's supposed to be able to instant cast long spells like Hallow.

My bad.

[Sulicius]

It happens to the best of us!

[meandean]

I don't understand the argument here. It's been argued that two 20th-level Arcane Archers can expect to defeat Vecna before he even takes a turn. In this thread, it's speculated that a Paladin could solo him. Asking an entire 20th-level party to beat him without using wish is far less of a limitation than people are saying they can handle...

[Sulicius]

I don't understand the argument here. It's been argued that two 20th-level Arcane Archers can defeat Vecna. In this thread, it's speculated that a Paladin could solo him. Asking an entire 20th-level party to beat him without using wish is far less of a limitation than people are saying they can handle...

And yet I have been told that me limiting the wish spell is borderline hostile to the players.

[x3n0n]

And yet I have been told that me limiting the wish spell is borderline hostile to the players.

The only person I really saw "complain" about the description then agreed that it's a reasonable thing to do for the purposes of playtesting:

I'll admit now though, I was being shortsighted. The fact that we already know that Wish is fully capable of leading into Vecna's defeat is a very good reason to restrict Wish in this type of playtest. Apologies @Sulicius.

If you want to nerf wish for a long-running campaign at your table that is expected to reach character level 17, that might be the kind of thing that you disclose in a "session zero", but that's a different kind of thing than "let's try a one-shot with nerfed wish".

[Hal]

The discussion seems to have gone far afield since the first page, but I thought I'd chime in with my own (brief) experience pitting my players against Vecna.

The party, all level 15:

Battlemaster Fighter
Moon Druid
Swarmkeeper Ranger 5/Spore Druid 10
Horizon Walker Ranger
Draconic Sorcerer


Vecna started the fight alone, but I gave him a lair action in which 6 shadows would spawn at Initiative 20 (which is also when the shadows would act each round, had they not been nuked as soon as they arrived.)

Vecna lost initiative handily to this group, so by the time he got to act, the party had scattered quite a bit. I had him open up with Dominate Monster on the sorcerer, which ended up being a strong option; the sorcerer wreaked havoc on his allies. Poor guy tried to counterspell it, but rolled poorly. And since his opening move was Draconic Transformation from Fizban, he was jacked up and able to unleash a lot of pain. Very strong option for Vecna, and seems to keep with his M.O. I also did well with my concentration rolls, so the players couldn't break his concentration, despite their best efforts.

We didn't get to finish the fight, due to time constraints; I'd put the PCs through a short dungeon as a leadup to the fight. My players mainly concerned themselves with trying to deal as much damage as quickly as possible, rather than using control tactics. Not necessarily a bad strategy, but the sorcerer staying dominated for several rounds meant that he was hurting his allies far, far more than they would have been otherwise.

I guess my contribution to all of this is that Vecna's strategy really depends on whether he's solo or comes with backup, and where he lands in the initiative order. Flight of the Damned looks like a natural opener, but in my game the PCs were never positioned where he could hit more than 2, which made it really unappealing. But Dominate Monster is dangerous to PCs who aren't ready to defend against it. Counterspell is great, but it's not an impenetrable defense.

Anyhow, that was my experience running this fight.

[Sulicius]

The discussion seems to have gone far afield since the first page, but I thought I'd chime in with my own (brief) experience pitting my players against Vecna.

-snip-

Anyhow, that was my experience running this fight.

Which way do you think the fight was leaning? Did you find Vecna a fun monster to fight and play? Was he strong enough in your opinion?

Will you continue the fight?

[Dork_Forge]

The discussion seems to have gone far afield since the first page, but I thought I'd chime in with my own (brief) experience pitting my players against Vecna.

The party, all level 15:

Battlemaster Fighter
Moon Druid
Swarmkeeper Ranger 5/Spore Druid 10
Horizon Walker Ranger
Draconic Sorcerer


Vecna started the fight alone, but I gave him a lair action in which 6 shadows would spawn at Initiative 20 (which is also when the shadows would act each round, had they not been nuked as soon as they arrived.)

Vecna lost initiative handily to this group, so by the time he got to act, the party had scattered quite a bit. I had him open up with Dominate Monster on the sorcerer, which ended up being a strong option; the sorcerer wreaked havoc on his allies. Poor guy tried to counterspell it, but rolled poorly. And since his opening move was Draconic Transformation from Fizban, he was jacked up and able to unleash a lot of pain. Very strong option for Vecna, and seems to keep with his M.O. I also did well with my concentration rolls, so the players couldn't break his concentration, despite their best efforts.

We didn't get to finish the fight, due to time constraints; I'd put the PCs through a short dungeon as a leadup to the fight. My players mainly concerned themselves with trying to deal as much damage as quickly as possible, rather than using control tactics. Not necessarily a bad strategy, but the sorcerer staying dominated for several rounds meant that he was hurting his allies far, far more than they would have been otherwise.

I guess my contribution to all of this is that Vecna's strategy really depends on whether he's solo or comes with backup, and where he lands in the initiative order. Flight of the Damned looks like a natural opener, but in my game the PCs were never positioned where he could hit more than 2, which made it really unappealing. But Dominate Monster is dangerous to PCs who aren't ready to defend against it. Counterspell is great, but it's not an impenetrable defense.

Anyhow, that was my experience running this fight.

What was the condition of everyone when the fight had to be cut short?

[ff7hero]

The discussion seems to have gone far afield since the first page, but I thought I'd chime in with my own (brief) experience pitting my players against Vecna.

The party, all level 15:

Battlemaster Fighter
Moon Druid
Swarmkeeper Ranger 5/Spore Druid 10
Horizon Walker Ranger
Draconic Sorcerer


Vecna started the fight alone, but I gave him a lair action in which 6 shadows would spawn at Initiative 20 (which is also when the shadows would act each round, had they not been nuked as soon as they arrived.)

Vecna lost initiative handily to this group, so by the time he got to act, the party had scattered quite a bit. I had him open up with Dominate Monster on the sorcerer, which ended up being a strong option; the sorcerer wreaked havoc on his allies. Poor guy tried to counterspell it, but rolled poorly. And since his opening move was Draconic Transformation from Fizban, he was jacked up and able to unleash a lot of pain. Very strong option for Vecna, and seems to keep with his M.O. I also did well with my concentration rolls, so the players couldn't break his concentration, despite their best efforts.

We didn't get to finish the fight, due to time constraints; I'd put the PCs through a short dungeon as a leadup to the fight. My players mainly concerned themselves with trying to deal as much damage as quickly as possible, rather than using control tactics. Not necessarily a bad strategy, but the sorcerer staying dominated for several rounds meant that he was hurting his allies far, far more than they would have been otherwise.

I guess my contribution to all of this is that Vecna's strategy really depends on whether he's solo or comes with backup, and where he lands in the initiative order. Flight of the Damned looks like a natural opener, but in my game the PCs were never positioned where he could hit more than 2, which made it really unappealing. But Dominate Monster is dangerous to PCs who aren't ready to defend against it. Counterspell is great, but it's not an impenetrable defense.

Anyhow, that was my experience running this fight.

Always nice to read about another encounter with Vecna.

One note, Vecna probably should have made rolling for Counterspell irrelevant with his own Dread Counterspell, unless it was a Subtle Counterspell.

[Hal]

What was the condition of everyone when the fight had to be cut short?

Vecna was down about half (he'd take his turn shortly and regain a mess of HP.)

I didn't get to poll the players about their state of health, since it was a pretty abrupt ending (I got called away for family matters.) I'd have estimated they were all down about half, give or take. The spore druid was close to full health, thanks to his symbiosis. They all opened up with their biggest spell slots, so I know the high level stuff was used up.

That said, the moon druid usually double dips between healing and damage dealing, but he was focused on using his biggest spells to try to burn Vecna down, so I don't know how much longevity the team had in them. I know they had big potions they could chug to bring their health back up, but you have to live long enough to consume it, right?

[Hal]

Always nice to read about another encounter with Vecna.

One note, Vecna probably should have made rolling for Counterspell irrelevant with his own Dread Counterspell, unless it was a Subtle Counterspell.

Yeah, I tend to forget about Counterspelling counterspells. Or remembering the reactions of my monsters. Or remembering to do all the other shenanigans they're capable of.

But other than that, I'm a great GM!


Which way do you think the fight was leaning? Did you find Vecna a fun monster to fight and play? Was he strong enough in your opinion?

Will you continue the fight?

Really want to finish it out, but I'm not sure we're gonna get a chance.

I think the players were probably going to pull this one off, eventually. They all brought necrotic resistance of some kind, so unless the fight went longer than 10 rounds, Vecna's biggest hits were not going to be as deadly as they could have been. Though you know how it is, once PCs start going down, it can snowball quickly.

As far as Vecna's power level goes . . . I'm not a great judge of this sort of thing. If you go by CR alone, the system says he's way beyond a deadly encounter for this group, but they held their own just fine. Necrotic resistance really swings the damage equation in the PCs favor, and mine didn't even really try to do any sort of control tactics like blocking healing, disarming him, etc. (I think the battlemaster intended to knock the dagger away, but he never quite got around to it.)

I'm a huge fan of this sort of monster stat block, where they have powers rather than a big spell list. I liked this in 4E, and I'm glad they're adding more of it in 5E. Vecna is still complicated, with all of his various (re)actions. If you run him right, keep track of his abilities, and use them at the right times, you can really cause the PCs to suffer. Miss out on any of that, and he'll seem like a pushover for his weight class. (This is true for any encounter, but especially so for monsters like this that emphasize control, trickery, and denial.)

[Kane0]

Appreciate the input!

[Rafaelfras]

Oh no! We ended in a cliffhanger

[Sulicius]

Back with a vengeance! More heroes came to face Vecna in my race-against-the-clock dungeon.

The party: Diviner Wizard, Forge Cleric, Champion Fighter and a Phantom rogue. They each got 10k gold, 2 uncommon, 1 rare item and 1 very rare or legendary item (with veto right from the DM).

Of the four items they could recover before Vecna instantly claimed them, the only aquired the Sword of Kas. They did not have the Hand and Eye of Vecna, or the Book of Vile Darkness. Vecna could use these.

In short; the cleric had the time to cast Forbiddance before Vecna arrived, and Vecna rolled a 7 on initiative, after all characters and the wizard's simulacrum. The fighter was in range and went all-out, but missing a few times with the Sword of Kas, still dealing ~90 damage. The rogue pumped another 40, and the wizard cast magic circle somewhere close. So one anti-magic field later, Vecna was only able to break the forbiddance spell with wish (after the wizard moved out of sight to counter). Then the cleric used Divine Intervention to make all weapons Artifact-like for anti-magic, and teleported next to Vecna with that, who would otherwise been out of the field. The wizard stopped Vecna from being useful with Portent, Lucky and some magic item that forced Vecna's rolls down by 1d4.

Then it was cleanup, I ruled that AMF cancelled Vecna's teleport reaction, which sealed his fate. He got smashed by the rogue and fighter after that.

So what did I think? I did not enjoy having to call the shots on spells like wish, AMF, divine intervention and monster abilities not worded as magical. RAW I could have done a lot to improve Vecna's chances, but it didn't feel fair to the players. They strategized, tried to synergize and read the rules well. They didn't deserve a DM who says "No, Vecna's teleport isn't stopped by AMF.

Did we have fun? Hell yeah. No regrets.

What should I have done to give Vecna more than one turn?
- Not have Vecna start within 30 ft of the fighter and the cleric.
- Not give players the time/ability to cast spells like Forbiddance in a dungeon.
- Decide before the battle whether certain abilities work in AMF.
- Not give the players a ton of magic items they can choose themselves.
- Not have Vecna enter a dungeon where Forbiddance is up.
- Allow contingency cast with the Book of Vile Darkness' Random Major Beneficial Property to work in an AMF.

In the end, all I really learned was that Wish, Divine Intervention, Forbiddance and a diviner wizard are very powerful, so there's that.

Probably gonna run it again some time in another way!

[Dork_Forge]

Back with a vengeance! More heroes came to face Vecna in my race-against-the-clock dungeon.

The party: Diviner Wizard, Forge Cleric, Champion Fighter and a Phantom rogue. They each got 10k gold, 2 uncommon, 1 rare item and 1 very rare or legendary item (with veto right from the DM).

Of the four items they could recover before Vecna instantly claimed them, the only aquired the Sword of Kas. They did not have the Hand and Eye of Vecna, or the Book of Vile Darkness. Vecna could use these.

In short; the cleric had the time to cast Forbiddance before Vecna arrived, and Vecna rolled a 7 on initiative, after all characters and the wizard's simulacrum. The fighter was in range and went all-out, but missing a few times with the Sword of Kas, still dealing ~90 damage. The rogue pumped another 40, and the wizard cast magic circle somewhere close. So one anti-magic field later, Vecna was only able to break the forbiddance spell with wish (after the wizard moved out of sight to counter). Then the cleric used Divine Intervention to make all weapons Artifact-like for anti-magic, and teleported next to Vecna with that, who would otherwise been out of the field. The wizard stopped Vecna from being useful with Portent, Lucky and some magic item that forced Vecna's rolls down by 1d4.

Then it was cleanup, I ruled that AMF cancelled Vecna's teleport reaction, which sealed his fate. He got smashed by the rogue and fighter after that.

So what did I think? I did not enjoy having to call the shots on spells like wish, AMF, divine intervention and monster abilities not worded as magical. RAW I could have done a lot to improve Vecna's chances, but it didn't feel fair to the players. They strategized, tried to synergize and read the rules well. They didn't deserve a DM who says "No, Vecna's teleport isn't stopped by AMF.

Did we have fun? Hell yeah. No regrets.

What should I have done to give Vecna more than one turn?
- Not have Vecna start within 30 ft of the fighter and the cleric.
- Not give players the time/ability to cast spells like Forbiddance in a dungeon.
- Decide before the battle whether certain abilities work in AMF.
- Not give the players a ton of magic items they can choose themselves.
- Not have Vecna enter a dungeon where Forbiddance is up.
- Allow contingency cast with the Book of Vile Darkness' Random Major Beneficial Property to work in an AMF.

In the end, all I really learned was that Wish, Divine Intervention, Forbiddance and a diviner wizard are very powerful, so there's that.

Probably gonna run it again some time in another way!

Do you know the gist of what items the players picked?

And sorry I'm a little confused, so the Cleric cast AMF, and then teleported next to Vecna? How did they teleport with both AMF and Forbiddance up?

Glad you had fun, not the calls I would have made, but I understand being pressured to make calls like that in the middle of the session.

[Sulicius]

Do you know the gist of what items the players picked?

And sorry I'm a little confused, so the Cleric cast AMF, and then teleported next to Vecna? How did they teleport with both AMF and Forbiddance up?

Glad you had fun, not the calls I would have made, but I understand being pressured to make calls like that in the middle of the session.

Wizard: robe of the archmagi, luckstone, astromancy archive
Rogue: Boots of Elvenkind and Cloak of Elvenkind, Light Crossbow +2, Studded Leather Armor +3
Cleric: Immovable Rod, Sentinel Shield, Amulet of the Devout (+2), Tome of Understanding
Fighter: Whelm, +1 shield, javelin of lightning.

Maybe I missed something.

The Cleric used divine intervention to do that teleport + artifact weapon buff. I accepted it rather than see him cast forbiddance with it again…

In the end, the player had fun, and isn’t that more important than optimizing strategies and going RAW?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Do you know the gist of what items the players picked?

And sorry I'm a little confused, so the Cleric cast AMF, and then teleported next to Vecna? How did they teleport with both AMF and Forbiddance up?

Glad you had fun, not the calls I would have made, but I understand being pressured to make calls like that in the middle of the session.

Point to add to this - not sure why you say "I made a ruling that Vecna's teleport reaction didn't work in AMF" because Antimagic Field blocks teleportation and planar travel full stop, whether the source is expressly magical or not, the only exceptions being teleportation through an artifact or deities magic. You'd have a heck of a time convincing me that any form of teleportation isn't magical.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding and you ruled that because it prevented the teleporting portion it also prevented the retaliation damage? That's more the gray area here I think.

With regards to the quoted comment, it looks like Forbiddance was cancelled by Vecna's Wish spell and I think the Cleric's teleport happened due to Divine Intervention, which would circumvent AMF restrictions. At least I think that's what happened.

[Sulicius]

Point to add to this - not sure why you say "I made a ruling that Vecna's teleport reaction didn't work in AMF" because Antimagic Field blocks teleportation and planar travel full stop, whether the source is expressly magical or not, the only exceptions being teleportation through an artifact or deities magic. You'd have a heck of a time convincing me that any form of teleportation isn't magical.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding and you ruled that because it prevented the teleporting portion it also prevented the retaliation damage? That's more the gray area here I think.

With regards to the quoted comment, it looks like Forbiddance was cancelled by Vecna's Wish spell and I think the Cleric's teleport happened due to Divine Intervention, which would circumvent AMF restrictions. At least I think that's what happened.

Ah, you’re totally right about AMF. Good thing I didn’t rule it otherwise.

[Dork_Forge]

Wizard: robe of the archmagi, luckstone, astromancy archive
Rogue: Boots of Elvenkind and Cloak of Elvenkind, Light Crossbow +2, Studded Leather Armor +3
Cleric: Immovable Rod, Sentinel Shield, Amulet of the Devout (+2), Tome of Understanding
Fighter: Whelm, +1 shield, javelin of lightning.

Maybe I missed something.

The Cleric used divine intervention to do that teleport + artifact weapon buff. I accepted it rather than see him cast forbiddance with it again…

In the end, the player had fun, and isn’t that more important than optimizing strategies and going RAW?

In playing the game in general? Of course!

If the aim is specifically to test a statblock*? Then it's a bonus, but secondary unless it came in the form of "That was a really fun monster to fight, so dynamic!" or something of the sort.

*I don't know if this was actually your intent with this game

For the record, I think casting Forbiddance would have probably been less damaging than what they actually did.


Players picking their own items tends to be an issue, though one I've not really found a good answer for in these tests, yet.

[Angelalex242]

At level 20, players should pretty much be picking their own items. They're going up against CR 26, should be no holds barred from the players, who will want to nova their little hearts out to try to kill him.

[OvisCaedo]

In terms of things to look at in retrospect, Vecna also has at-will dispel magic. If he comes across an area warded by forbiddance, or was anywhere inside the area when it was cast, I'd normally expect him to have dispelled it before actually encountering the party. Unless he teleported right in next to the party without knowing, which... probably doesn't make sense since forbiddance would block said entry.

I'm also curious, looking at the spell's wording, if it actually blocks teleporting around inside the area, or only blocks teleporting in from the outside. Hmmm...

If you actually get onto him with an antimagic field, I think he'd be very hard pressed to escape from someone grappling him in it, but with his immunity to nonmagical weapons... I think it would be tricky to actually hurt him, without something like that divine intervention effect you greenlit.

[Sulicius]

At level 20, players should pretty much be picking their own items. They're going up against CR 26, should be no holds barred from the players, who will want to nova their little hearts out to try to kill him.

The DM should 100% limit the items the players can take. Magic items in 5e are notoriously balanced poorly according to their rarity. CR is also NOT INCLUDING the player use of magic items to a large degree. But I did allow it. They all went for the most powerful items: those that improve to hit, save DC’s and armor class.

A DM controls what magic items the players get throughout a campaign. That way, the DM has a good idea of how powerful a pc is, and how powerful they will be afterwards.

In a one-shot like mine, you either have to restrict items beforehand, or scale the encounter in reaction. I prefer the former.


In terms of things to look at in retrospect, Vecna also has at-will dispel magic. If he comes across an area warded by forbiddance, or was anywhere inside the area when it was cast, I'd normally expect him to have dispelled it before actually encountering the party. Unless he teleported right in next to the party without knowing, which... probably doesn't make sense since forbiddance would block said entry.

I'm also curious, looking at the spell's wording, if it actually blocks teleporting around inside the area, or only blocks teleporting in from the outside. Hmmm...

If you actually get onto him with an antimagic field, I think he'd be very hard pressed to escape from someone grappling him in it, but with his immunity to nonmagical weapons... I think it would be tricky to actually hurt him, without something like that divine intervention effect you greenlit.

Yeah, with Forbiddance cast beforehand, Vecna shouldn’t have been able to enter. However, I run a game in the real world, where I had 3 hours and no other session. The players were expecting to fight Vecna, and they did.

This was also the reason I gave them a way to kill Vecna. Time was running out. It was a success, in the end, no matter the rules.

[Dork_Forge]

At level 20, players should pretty much be picking their own items. They're going up against CR 26, should be no holds barred from the players, who will want to nova their little hearts out to try to kill him.

No, they shouldn't. Besides that being an incredible boost to character power, that is not representative of how PCs would acquire items in most games. CR 26 doesn't assume that players built their characters with cherry-picking magic items.

[Kane0]

Aye cherrypicking magic items can lead to stuff quite far afield from the expected norm

[Angelalex242]

To be fair, I am used to AL, where you can pick (Through adventuring) whatever items you want...except that darn Holy Avenger isn't legal to get anywhere. It annoys my Paladin Heart.