Testing Tiamat: Eladriel attempt

[Dork_Forge]

Initiative order:

Druid 21
Bard 20
Cleric 15
Homunculus 13
Simul-Owl 13
Wizard 12
Couatl 11
Owl 8
Tiamat 3
Giant Ape 3

Spoiler: Grid layout and starting positions

Show

[Eldariel]

Aislinn exclaims "By Mielikki, that's big!".

She moves 100' back (on Phantom Steed) and starts chanting a spell without any obvious effects initially.

Spoiler

Show

Move 100' back.
Ready an action to cast Wall of Stone between the party and the Dragon protecting the party in case of attack.

[Dork_Forge]

Legendary Action

Tiamat's red head lets out a gout of scorching flame in a 90ft cone, the cone encompasses everyone but the Druid that moved back. Please make Dexterity saving DC27 throws for all of those affected that can possibly succeed. You need not roll for those with saves of +6 or less.

Total damage is: (26d6)[97]

Half damage on a save: 48

If applicable, quarter damage: 24

Please remember to apply Warding Bond damage to the Cleric in addition to the Cleric's own damage.

Please remember to make concentration saves for any effects in play (such as the Bard's Elemental Weapon VII (Thunder))

Spoiler: Grid at the end of Turn 1 & Cone measurement

Show

Once the breath has been resolved fully you may let loose the readied spell if desired, please try to be as specific about the layout of the wall as possible.

[Eldariel]

As the Dragon unleashes her mighty breath, a wall of stone raises from the ground between the breath and the party.

Spoiler

Show

The idea of the trigger is to block the attack - that is, at the moment that any attempt at an attack is made the Wall springs to be (as per how readied actions are described, the spell is cast on the character's turn and released at will with a reaction so this shouldn't be a problem timing-wise). The Wall is:

- Four 10' blocks of stone between the party and Tiamat, in two stories (so 20' high, 40' wide) with the final two pieces as a "roof" in the center. The upper levels of the wall have a slight curvature towards the party so as to enclose their space.

[Dork_Forge]

As the Dragon unleashes her mighty breath, a wall of stone raises from the ground between the breath and the party.

Spoiler

Show

The idea of the trigger is to block the attack - that is, at the moment that any attempt at an attack is made the Wall springs to be (as per how readied actions are described, the spell is cast on the character's turn and released at will with a reaction so this shouldn't be a problem timing-wise). The Wall is:

- Four 10' blocks of stone between the party and Tiamat, in two stories (so 20' high, 40' wide) with the final two pieces as a "roof" in the center. The upper levels of the wall have a slight curvature towards the party so as to enclose their space.

This is not possible with a readied action.

I was already being generous with a breath weapon triggering the readied action, since you explicitly stated attack.

[Eldariel]

This is not possible with a readied action.

I was already being generous with a breath weapon triggering the readied action, since you explicitly stated attack.

In that case, she'll simply cast the Wall on her turn.

[Dork_Forge]

In that case, she'll simply cast the Wall on her turn.

Her turn has already ended, as shown by the Legendary Action taking place, so she can cast the spell to provide protection going forth for any that wish to stay behind it, or allow the trigger to pass.

Please feel free to ask for any clarity on rules or rulings before making decisions however, I'm happy to help.

[Eldariel]

Her turn has already ended, as shown by the Legendary Action taking place, so she can cast the spell to provide protection going forth for any that wish to stay behind it, or allow the trigger to pass.

Please feel free to ask for any clarity on rules or rulings before making decisions however, I'm happy to help.

This was supposed to be a test of whether a level 14 party can beat Tiamat, not whether I can guess how you rule any given thing. I'm trying to be efficient here and not ask about everything before doing stuff. Please reconsider.

[Dork_Forge]

This was supposed to be a test of whether a level 14 party can beat Tiamat, not whether I can guess how you rule any given thing. I'm trying to be efficient here and not ask about everything before doing stuff. Please reconsider.

You wanted to test a party and I was happy to oblige, when you suggested the terrain change from the initial proposed (which is what facilitated a rock base for the spell to begin with) and I obliged taking on board your comments. The game has now started, you took a turn and when the Legendary Action has taken effect you would like a do over because you misjudged your turn.

This is not my ruling, this is the RAW of readying an action as shown in the link I provided. I am offering clarity for anything you may have any doubts about and pointed out the action you took still has value.

You misjudged how the game rule worked, it's perfectly reasonable that the Druid misjudged how quickly they could erect a wall of stone in front of a breathing dragon if an in character reasoning is needed. The fact remains you took an action and now would like to retroactively change it, I do not see a valid reason to do so just because your planned tactic did not work as effectively as you had hoped.

Whilst I appreciate you trying to be efficient, I would rather you ask instead of assume if you are trying to do something that might cause some kind of departure from your perception.

But to be clear this has at no point been guessing what I would rule, I have been very straightforward and clear with my rulings, thought processes and flexible in accommodating you. The RAW is RAW and was free for you to review before taking your action, in this case RAW even makes sense and I'd even argue seems RAI.

So please resolve the breath and I will provide and updated grid with wall placement if she would still like to act on her trigger.

[Eldariel]

Okay, we are done here. Thanks for your time. I'm gonna run this with someone else.

[Dork_Forge]

Okay, we are done here. Thanks for your time. I'm gonna run this with someone else.

So... you were so confident in calling her a chump but you bail at your first (self-imposed) hurdle?

What is actually your issue with how I have ran this so far? That I'm not inclined for you to change turns that didn't happen how you want them to?

[Eldariel]

So... you were so confident in calling her a chump but you bail at your first (self-imposed) hurdle?

What is actually your issue with how I have ran this so far? That I'm not inclined for you to change turns that didn't happen how you want them to?

My issue with this is that I'm studying a phenomenon, not trying to play supertight mechanical game here - What I'm interested in is whether the party can beat her, not whether I can give proper, exact descriptions of everything a bunch of characters will do, when I'm doing this in the side of everything (no time and little ability to focus), online with a DM I've never met and never played with. This is a stupid issue - what do we learn of you ruling that way so that the breath weapon can happen? Absolutely nothing except that you require a slightly stricter wording for readied actions than I. Therefore I'm gonna DM it myself playing the party and Tiamat both, and post the results once I'm done. You can take it as you will, but to me this type of play is an annoying waste of time and thus I'm just not gonna engage in it anymore.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Comment from the peanut gallery: the linked ruling is explicit, readying for “if I see a swell of elemental energy in one of her mouths as if a breath weapon is imminent” Is a viable trigger, as is “if the party is about to take damage.”

Comparing passive deception and insight scores to determine whether you fall for potential feints could be a viable resolution mechanic if she’s bothering but I can’t see a reason she would in this instance.

Additionally, just doming/cubing the party in the wall and then dropping concentration after the breath should accomplish the goal here.

On the player side, given that the DM has already made a concession concerning the spell itself, I don’t think they’re being unreasonable and recognizing that your initial wording was bad and correcting it going forward is the better choice. A single instance of victory here wouldn’t prove any point, you can expect to run this battle a lot with limited constants: party #s but not composition beyond “a Wizard with Forcecage” and facing Tiamat.

Notably this inspired an interesting PC idea for a dragonborn that’s the reincarnation of one of her heads... I know the lore says she doesn’t have multiple personalities but that’s less fun I think.

[Dork_Forge]

My issue with this is that I'm studying a phenomenon, not trying to play supertight mechanical game here - What I'm interested in is whether the party can beat her, not whether I can give proper, exact descriptions of everything a bunch of characters will do, when I'm doing this in the side of everything (no time and little ability to focus), online with a DM I've never met and never played with. This is a stupid issue - what do we learn of you ruling that way so that the breath weapon can happen? Absolutely nothing except that you require a slightly stricter wording for readied actions than I. Therefore I'm gonna DM it myself playing the party and Tiamat both, and post the results once I'm done. You can take it as you will, but to me this type of play is an annoying waste of time and thus I'm just not gonna engage in it anymore.

You spammed divinations to gain metaknowledge, spammed summons and similar spells, gave everyone Magic Mouth earpieces, spammed an incredibly high amount of buffs and attempted a strategy you assumed would neuter her.

That is a mechanical game, I was even flexible with the trigger since you used the word attack, you just didn't like what you assumed to work, not working.

And seeing that thread already I shall take it as: meaningless since the odds are firmly stacked on the parties side from the DM perspective.

Comment from the peanut gallery: the linked ruling is explicit, readying for “if I see a swell of elemental energy in one of her mouths as if a breath weapon is imminent” Is a viable trigger, as is “if the party is about to take damage.”

Comparing passive deception and insight scores to determine whether you fall for potential feints could be a viable resolution mechanic if she’s bothering but I can’t see a reason she would in this instance.

Additionally, just doming/cubing the party in the wall and then dropping concentration after the breath should accomplish the goal here.

The only reason to not just cast the wall spells on the PCs turn is explicitly to game it so she wastes her Legendary Actions.

On the player side, given that the DM has already made a concession concerning the spell itself, I don’t think they’re being unreasonable and recognizing that your initial wording was bad and correcting it going forward is the better choice. A single instance of victory here wouldn’t prove any point, you can expect to run this battle a lot with limited constants: party #s but not composition beyond “a Wizard with Forcecage” and facing Tiamat.

Notably this inspired an interesting PC idea for a dragonborn that’s the reincarnation of one of her heads... I know the lore says she doesn’t have multiple personalities but that’s less fun I think.

I'd encourage you to read the thread Eladriel started DMing themselves, where readying walls completely neuters breath weapons apparently.

Thank you for voicing your opinion, it's nice to see that I wasn't as harsh as I have been portrayed.

The PC idea sounds cool, regardless of the lore.

[JNAProductions]

I'd encourage you to read the thread Eladriel started DMing themselves, where readying walls completely neuters breath weapons apparently.

Got a link? I'm curious as to what Elad thinks is fair.

[Dork_Forge]

Got a link? I'm curious as to what Elad thinks is fair.

Here you go

[Eldariel]

The only reason to not just cast the wall spells on the PCs turn is explicitly to game it so she wastes her Legendary Actions.

Or to not presume knowledge of her legendary actions and attack modes...? My characters know she can cast some spells and there's no telling what kinds of other abilities a creature like this might have, but an interceding Wall is generally a good solution to most kinds of attacks, hence the broad wording. With the Wall, the remaining legendary actions are academic anyways since they can only target the wall so there's no point in trying to tax one. It was literally just to play with the character information I was given. But the ship has long sailed on correcting this misunderstanding, sadly enough.

[Dork_Forge]

Or to not presume knowledge of her legendary actions and attack modes...? My characters know she can cast some spells and there's no telling what kinds of other abilities a creature like this might have, but an interceding Wall is generally a good solution to most kinds of attacks, hence the broad wording. With the Wall, the remaining legendary actions are academic anyways since they can only target the wall so there's no point in trying to tax one. It was literally just to play with the character information I was given. But the ship has long sailed on correcting this misunderstanding, sadly enough.

If the PCs goal is to protect the party, then they should have just cast the wall. Trying to surprise her by popping it up immediately before they get hit with a breath is a risk, one that can still be useful but didn't pan out.

I'm happy with my ruling based on the actual rules and what you said the trigger was, if you're unhappy with the result then you should be clearer about said trigger or ask before taking said readied action. Being clear about a readied action trigger is not unreasonable or adversarial, it's the game. I'm not interested in do-overs when what you did was still a perfectly valid and valuable move purely because you decided to make a favourable assumption/got lazy with your trigger wording.

[Eldariel]

If the PCs goal is to protect the party, then they should have just cast the wall. Trying to surprise her by popping it up immediately before they get hit with a breath is a risk, one that can still be useful but didn't pan out.

I'm happy with my ruling based on the actual rules and what you said the trigger was, if you're unhappy with the result then you should be clearer about said trigger or ask before taking said readied action. Being clear about a readied action trigger is not unreasonable or adversarial, it's the game. I'm not interested in do-overs when what you did was still a perfectly valid and valuable move purely because you decided to make a favourable assumption/got lazy with your trigger wording.

I repeat my question: How does this prove anything any way on whether a level 14 party can beat Tiamat? It's just completely useless to include miscommunications in such a scenario if the information we wish to glean is actually whether that can be done. I just don't get it: what's your endgame? What is your goal, if not that?

[Dork_Forge]

I repeat my question: How does this prove anything any way on whether a level 14 party can beat Tiamat? It's just completely useless to include miscommunications in such a scenario if the information we wish to glean is actually whether that can be done. I just don't get it: what's your endgame? What is your goal, if not that?

My goal is to run an actual play-like scenario to test out claims about the weakness of Tiamat's statblock, to that end I'm not interested in bending over backwards to compensate for player error, when their choice still has value and was a risk to begin with. Here's a case in point, in your own thread you have the party readying action to consistently block breath weapons, ruling that because they don't explicity say they damage objects they don't. This is also in an arena far larger than the one you agreed to and were the reason it was limited at all meaning that the party could fully exploit the Phantom Steeds whilst Tiamat makes questionable moves like attacking a wall instead of going after the caster that caused the problem.

I don't think it was actually a miscommunication, I think you were trying to game reactions and Legendary actions in a manner that wouldn't really make sense to actual characters. However it doesn't seem you actually stopped to think about this:

Whether or not there is a perceptable trigger prior to the breath actually happening is entirely a DM ruling.

But hey, that but that might be adversarial to you because it goes against your plan.

She's a deity with deity level mental stats and you portray the party out maneuvering her frequently when it frankly makes no sense.

So here's what I've seen so far after the simulation started: hours after you took your first turn you object to the arena size, presumably because you realised it doesn't offer you the maneuverability you wanted. You refuse to resolve a breath weapon because you think the ruling was unfair, despite it being RAW.

The only evidence I really have from you engaging in the simulation is that if something doesn't go your way, you will then proceed to argue it and change that thing, even if you previously agreed to it.

What thoroughly confuses me is the breathweapon, it didn't catch everyone, resistances were in play, multiple characters had Death Ward and basically everyone had increased base hp.

Here's my theory: Your strategy is so fragile that a single breath unhinged it and you didn't like that; if that is the case then your claim about how weak her block is written just becomes even more dubious.

If it's just that you didn't like that you got another thing wrong in the course of this, well that isn't really my issue, the wall still would have protected the party from a second breath and was certainly not cause to throw down dice and leave.

[Chaos Jackal]

Seems very far from a misjudgment and very close to miscommunication to me.

Deliberate miscommunication, in fact. It's not like the party made a wrong call or a mistaken action. The purpose of the wall of stone is pretty clear. Someone interpreting the RAW as having it go up after the breath would obviously not ready an action of the kind against said breath.

This is an experiment in PC and monster capabilities, not a guessing game about a DM you're playing with for the very first time and his table tendencies. What happened is an obvious "gotcha!" moment. And it goes against the thread's entire purpose.

I'll be following the new thread. I'm curious to see how this fight plays out.

[Dork_Forge]

Seems very far from a misjudgment and very close to miscommunication to me.

Deliberate miscommunication, in fact. It's not like the party made a wrong call or a mistaken action. The purpose of the wall of stone is pretty clear. Someone interpreting the RAW as having it go up after the breath would obviously not ready an action of the kind against said breath.

This is an experiment in PC and monster capabilities, not a guessing game about a DM you're playing with for the very first time and his table tendencies. What happened is an obvious "gotcha!" moment. And it goes against the thread's entire purpose.

I'll be following the new thread. I'm curious to see how this fight plays out.

No, not deliberate miscommunication.

The Character chanced readying a wall instead of just casting it, what guarantee did that character have that they could have got the wall up in time?

What clear cut RAW says that you can ready throw a wall in front of a breathing dragon?

This isn't about DM rulings, but since it's being rolled out they are inherent to some degree and I've tried to be transparent and open about that. If you want proof of that then check the original set up thread.

If you want to see an exercise in favourable rulings and nonesensical actions then I hope you enjoy the other thread.

[Eldariel]

My goal is to run an actual play-like scenario to test out claims about the weakness of Tiamat's statblock, to that end I'm not interested in bending over backwards to compensate for player error, when their choice still has value and was a risk to begin with. Here's a case in point, in your own thread you have the party readying action to consistently block breath weapons, ruling that because they don't explicity say they damage objects they don't.

Whuh?! Nope, I'm damaging it from all the elements. Acid is doing full as is lightning, fire is doing half to stone, poison does nothing and cold does half. The two breaths were enough to punch through half the Wall's HP but it didn't matter in the long run. This is for Wall of Stone (180 HP), Force is of course impervious to damage.

This is also in an arena far larger than the one you agreed to and were the reason it was limited at all meaning that the party could fully exploit the Phantom Steeds whilst Tiamat makes questionable moves like attacking a wall instead of going after the caster that caused the problem.

It's the arena I originally suggested.

I don't think it was actually a miscommunication, I think you were trying to game reactions and Legendary actions in a manner that wouldn't really make sense to actual characters. However it doesn't seem you actually stopped to think about this:

Whether or not there is a perceptable trigger prior to the breath actually happening is entirely a DM ruling.

But hey, that but that might be adversarial to you because it goes against your plan.

It's something I consider adversial because you didn't inform me of how you would rule it before I had to "lock it in" - I wasn't given a chance to plan the turn with the knowledge of how you like to run them. I didn't want to waste time asking about everything because, given the fight would last at least 10 rounds, that would take forever. Not that it matters, I doubt we would've gotten very far either way before some irreconcilable differences came up so it's probably better I play it by myself and people can comment on what they think I did wrong afterwards or during it. I believe it's the DM's job to make sure the player knows the results of their actions by how they rule it, especially if they haven't played together before. Otherwise it just feels like a "Gotcha!"-moment that has nothing to do with the characters and everything to do with the player - which is a non-factor on whether a level X party can beat Y.

Here's my theory: Your strategy is so fragile that a single breath unhinged it and you didn't like that; if that is the case then your claim about how weak her block is written just becomes even more dubious.

If it's just that you didn't like that you got another thing wrong in the course of this, well that isn't really my issue, the wall still would have protected the party from a second breath and was certainly not cause to throw down dice and leave.

You're of course free to have your own theory, but that's wrong at a few points. Yes, I'm not sure the party could win if wasting two big resources (the Wall and potentially Elemental Weapon though there's a reasonable chance of keeping it thanks to Diviners) in the very start for no reason: but that's because of the stipulations, not in general. Even at full power for the party, it's a winnable fight but not an easy one by any means: remember the number of handicaps the party took, and minimum level on top of it (level 15 would be a massive change given it would open up 6 new spells that would be offensively viable, not to mention 8th level spells in general). Even after the breath I could of course make a fight out of it, recovering from the breath just fine with healing et al. but it's just so pointless. I don't agree with many of the rulings you made. I tried to work with you, but it just turned out that it's not gonna work: we'd just argue round after round over something pointless and spend way too much time doing way too little, as we had thus far.

That's frankly the main sticking point: I don't want to waste so much time arguing over pointless stuff. I'm interested in the data: how does the fight go, and what are the odds of winning with solid play. I'm not interested in whether I write my turns exactly the right way. Currently I think my party has a reasonable shot but Tiamat is durable if nothing else so it's not like it's gonna be trivial to win from here. Tiamat finally got to land some breaths (exactly 120' as it turns out) and dropped the Cleric to 18 HP (from 166) in two legendary actions. So it's not like she doesn't do damage. It's just that I don't think dealing damage and having big numbers is enough to be "strong" in this game. She's gonna get to breathe plenty more on my characters. We'll see where it goes from there; dice are going to matter as is strategy.


If you wanted to truly run it as a real game, it'd have to be framed like a real game: I'd have to be able to sit down, undistracted, able to focus without children and work and so on. That's just not possible, not with these schedules anyways. I don't have the time nor the energy to proofread everything: I was expecting you to cooperate with me, figure out the best turns and go from there. So we could actually figure out whether, all else being equal, the level 14 PHB-only no magic items generic party could indeed beat Tiamat reasonably. When I found out it wasn't the case that'd we'd work together, I came to the conclusion that it'd be a waste of both of our times to continue.

[Dork_Forge]

Whuh?! Nope, I'm damaging it from all the elements. Acid is doing full as is lightning, fire is doing half to stone, poison does nothing and cold does half. The two breaths were enough to punch through half the Wall's HP but it didn't matter in the long run. This is for Wall of Stone (180 HP), Force is of course impervious to damage.

Rereading I see that now, apologies.

It's the arena I originally suggested.

And it is not large enough for the given Tiamat to actually function within, so I guess what I should really say: A Tiamat far smaller than proposed.

The proposed arena and lay out gives the PCs an immense amount of maneuvaribility without actually handicapping them, simultaneously enabling wall of stone as desired.

It's something I consider adversial because you didn't inform me of how you would rule it before I had to "lock it in" - I wasn't given a chance to plan the turn with the knowledge of how you like to run them. I didn't want to waste time asking about everything because, given the fight would last at least 10 rounds, that would take forever. Not that it matters, I doubt we would've gotten very far either way before some irreconcilable differences came up so it's probably better I play it by myself and people can comment on what they think I did wrong afterwards or during it. I believe it's the DM's job to make sure the player knows the results of their actions by how they rule it, especially if they haven't played together before. Otherwise it just feels like a "Gotcha!"-moment that has nothing to do with the characters and everything to do with the player - which is a non-factor on whether a level X party can beat Y.

You asked many questions before the game, I aswered them all, you then proceeded to do what I think I would fairly call something nonstandard, assuming how it would work. Then you tried to justify it by being 'efficient' instead of asking before hand, it just so happens that 'efficiency' here means your default assumptions, which you know I have taken issue to many times in the lead up to this.

My ruling was based in RAW, RAW that you have access to, you then tried to use the game rules to create a defense that makes no sense. If you want to protect the party, just cast it. The only reason to hold it is to try and waste her Legendary Actions, which is definitely you trying to take advantage of the rules, rather than something a character would logically do, or I'd wager most players would do.

You're of course free to have your own theory, but that's wrong at a few points. Yes, I'm not sure the party could win if wasting two big resources (the Wall and potentially Elemental Weapon though there's a reasonable chance of keeping it thanks to Diviners) in the very start for no reason: but that's because of the stipulations, not in general. Even at full power for the party, it's a winnable fight but not an easy one by any means: remember the number of handicaps the party took, and minimum level on top of it (level 15 would be a massive change given it would open up 6 new spells that would be offensively viable, not to mention 8th level spells in general). Even after the breath I could of course make a fight out of it, recovering from the breath just fine with healing et al. but it's just so pointless. I don't agree with many of the rulings you made. I tried to work with you, but it just turned out that it's not gonna work: we'd just argue round after round over something pointless and spend way too much time doing way too little, as we had thus far.

You don't agree with many? Because this is the first time that has come across, before now it has been discussion and give and take, including the large amount of prebuffing and knowledge gathering.

That's frankly the main sticking point: I don't want to waste so much time arguing over pointless stuff. I'm interested in the data: how does the fight go, and what are the odds of winning with solid play. I'm not interested in whether I write my turns exactly the right way. Currently I think my party has a reasonable shot but Tiamat is durable if nothing else so it's not like it's gonna be trivial to win from here. Tiamat finally got to land some breaths (exactly 120' as it turns out) and dropped the Cleric to 18 HP (from 166) in two legendary actions. So it's not like she doesn't do damage. It's just that I don't think dealing damage and having big numbers is enough to be "strong" in this game. She's gonna get to breathe plenty more on my characters. We'll see where it goes from there; dice are going to matter as is strategy.

I can see the sticking point, 'solid play' doesn't seem to be whats happening to me personally, I mean in your own thread the wall trick was pulled multiple times, so it's clearly important to your strategy and to be blunt it's a DM dependent gimmick.

If you wanted to truly run it as a real game, it'd have to be framed like a real game: I'd have to be able to sit down, undistracted, able to focus without children and work and so on. That's just not possible, not with these schedules anyways. I don't have the time nor the energy to proofread everything: I was expecting you to cooperate with me, figure out the best turns and go from there. So we could actually figure out whether, all else being equal, the level 14 PHB-only no magic items generic party could indeed beat Tiamat reasonably. When I found out it wasn't the case that'd we'd work together, I came to the conclusion that it'd be a waste of both of our times to continue.

And a real game would have things go ways you don't like sometimes, which seems to be an issue given the arguing after starting the game you agreed to.

I have cooperated with you massively in the preceeding days to even get to this point. But let me clear here, if you don't have the time or energy to do something right I don't understand what you're trying to prove by doing it at all.

Before the game started I had to point out multiple errors on your part, that all went in a favourable direction.

I didn't even mention that Mage Armor cannot be on anyone already wearing armor, since it wasn't relevant, but is yet another mistake in your build up.

And then there is something I didn't catch until I read your thread actually, because I was trusting you to largely keep your own house in order:

How do the Simulacrums have their own 7th level slots available?

At first I thought it was just a typing error, you missed the x, big deal. Then in your thread the Simulacrum upcast Elemental Weapon.

So your contribution has been riddled with errors, that tend to lean in a way that makes things better for the party, and you tell me you don't have the energy to proof read?

If you don't have the energy to proof read your own posts why should anyone have the energy to run anything for you let alone cover your back on the mistakes you're making.

[Valmark]

And then there is something I didn't catch until I read your thread actually, because I was trusting you to largely keep your own house in order:

How do the Simulacrums have their own 7th level slots available?

At first I thought it was just a typing error, you missed the x, big deal. Then in your thread the Simulacrum upcast Elemental Weapon.

So your contribution has been riddled with errors, that tend to lean in a way that makes things better for the party, and you tell me you don't have the energy to proof read?

If you don't have the energy to proof read your own posts why should anyone have the energy to run anything for you let alone cover your back on the mistakes you're making.

This is actually easy- Eldariel stated that the two casters had a Simulacrum of each other, not themselves. As such they don't have to have their 7th level slot consumed.

[Dork_Forge]

This is actually easy- Eldariel stated that the two casters had a Simulacrum of each other, not themselves. As such they don't have to have their 7th level slot consumed.

The run up to the actual fight was also pretty clear, they were confident in needing one day, maybe two for the simulacrums.

If the intent of flip flopping the ownership was to cheat the slot system then it should have been more clearly spaced out and labeled in the run up. I just assumed it was to create flexible turns having a Bard/Wizard Wizard/Bard turn so you could mix and match martial offense with casting.

But let's be clear, this mix matching of Simulacrums was literally an edit after the fact saying something to the effect of: Oh and the x has the y simulacrum and vice versa.

It changes the time needed for Simulacrum creation to two days of pretty much only doing that, which was not clear if that was even meant to be changed at all.