The Gauntlet

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, I don't have time at the moment to sift through and find where my take was stated as a general expectation. It just seems reasonable to involve oneself in the process, which is literally what we're all doing here...

Sure, but maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean exactly. I think they're trying to grow their channel and that's why they're sharing (and I have no issue with this unlike other people on this forum btw). I don't think we have received guidelines to run these ourselves. But again, I may be misunderstanding you. As an example, both DMs handled the water weirds differently. Both DMs had the hunter sharks at a different starting distance, as Dork Forge pointed out. There's ambiguity about what's on the map vs what they're ignoring. So it's not clear to me that we're receiving guidelines to run these gauntlets ourselves.

I hate the word 'overrated' for the reason that psyren pointed out

It just means valuing something more highly than it deserves.

The extra damage helped a lot! Fanatical Focus helped a lot! staying alive past zero got it a few more kills.

Would a Tempest barbarian have done better here? I really doubt it, very little of what they're good at would have mattered much here. A Totem barb? Which totem?

I just really don't see it.

I'm not saying they would have performed better, though for me it's not obvious they wouldn't have. I'm saying in an encounter where the terrain is against you and you are fighting multiple enemies more mobile than you, it's pretty clear that the Zealot does nothing for that. I can't say much more than that because I don't really know what's on the map and I don't intend to grill you guys for every last detail just to prove a point.

But there's a structure to the right of where the group starts, just north of the channel. If I was fighting the mummies and weirds and then saw a group of sharks approaching as the place filled up with water, I'd likely retreat there and take advantage of a choke point. If there's verticality (there's trees on the map), that changes things for a barbarian that can fly (Eagle Attunement) or climb (Beast). It looks like there might be places to climb to (boulders and pillars) that a climbing or flying barbarian can perch on and attack with Reach (zealot is using a polearm). The Tundra barbarian looks like they can enter that structure and then block off a room by freezing the water, stand on the block of ice, and attack everything coming at it. Beast and Sea barbarians can swim (duh, lol).

Terrain works for martials in both directions; it can severely hinder them, or aid them. If this map is just the matrix loading screen, and all we have is chest high water, then yeah, not much to talk about. But if there's actual stuff on the map to make use of, then I think the other subclasses can do well as well. BTW, this would help the Zealot as well, as there'd be more rounds before Rage Beyond Death triggers and he wouldn't be tanking multiple saves vs paralysis each turn.

Yeah each video is about 4 hours of play time and 20 hours of editing. So 30-something man-hours total, split between four people (mostly CMCC) We all have jobs lol, so stuff takes time.

Yeah I can only imagine.

Not to suggest for you guys to do even more work, but I know you guys have mentioned the channel growth previously. If this works out with the prominent youtuber that was mentioned before (I think they might run through the gauntlet), and you see an uptick in views/subscribers/etc., maybe (and forgive me, I know this is going to seem like an outrageous idea after you mentioned 30 man-hours lol) an option could be to offer a Patreon tier where someone in that tier can submit a build according to your parameters, and have them run through a gauntlet.

I think people would like that, but I don't know how to make it worth it for you guys to do all that work...

Antimagic field, the spell, is 8th level, has a 10 foot radius, and lasts an hour. Having an enemy like a golem with an antimagic field on it wouldn't be out of line for a future gauntlet of this level. That's a challenging enemy that requires you to work around. Beholder would be similar. Casters would be worse against such enemies but honestly they'd have ways of managing it. It's not a hard counter.

But when people bring up these antimagic field encounters I get the feeling they're talking about something that covers the whole encounter and is permanent, which is... simply not in the game at all. So its off limits for this test, which almost entirely uses OGL content. The only homebrew we had was the 'ancient poltergeists' and that was a change made to hurt the wizard.

The beholder has a 150ft cone of Antimagic. That covers a lot of space. It may not be the entire map, but it may as well be depending on the terrain and minions you pair it with.

Certainly I don't understand the logic that if we don't add superantimagic into the test, that its a bad test.

I don't think that's what anyone was saying, just to be clear.

The gauntlet was made and then we decided to put Nuke through it. This is not specifically designed to make the nuke look good. The nuke is good, and looks good in a test environment. Its that simple.

I wasn't suggesting that the gauntlet was designed to make Nuke look good.

In other words, as my statistics professor would say, garbage in, garbage out.

Seems needlessly harsh...

[trtl]

Seems needlessly harsh...

Sorry, it definitely wasn't meant that way! It's a common phrase used in statistics. It means you can't trust your results if the data you use is flawed

[Eldariel]

Sorry, it definitely wasn't meant that way! It's a common phrase used in statistics. It means you can't trust your results if the data you use is flawed

In this case though, while the data might not be perfect, I'd say it's far from garbage. We are talking about a collection of encounters that showcase a wide variety of the important facets of combat power in the game. In other words, far as combat goes, the better you are able to respond to a variety of challenges and the more raw action power you have, the better your performance. The data has noise (probabilities for instance; against the Barb the Weirds' improbably high Stealth made a huge difference; also a gauntlet will never be perfect in a game as complex as D&D, but it's a far cry from nothing) but basically all real world data we work with has noise (stuff like BKT, median income, military power of a country, various financial indices, etc.) and yet there's a reason countries spend billions producing those statistics: in spite of their incompleteness, they have significant predictive and/or descriptive power.

DPR, meanwhile, is extremely weak, because it accounts for no factors whatsoever. The ability to cast Wall of Force is worth 0 DPR in spite of it being able to defeat about 90% of the MM at zero risk. Abilities that help you reach opponent provides you with no DPR. DPR doesn't account for overkill. And so on. Basically anything is better than DPR for anything but comparing otherwise identically ranged and mobile melee or ranged (melee with melee, ranged with ranged) builds with one another - in other words, it has no predictive power for most of the classes, crucially for the top of the proverbial tier tree. And DPR doesn't really work with AOE since while it's counted as hitting two enemies, the circumstances in which you face hordes and single strong enemies differ a lot and you probably don't pick AOE for single strong opponent. It's really hard to solve a question like "how do Wizard and Druid stack up against one another on level 11" with DPR since neither class gives their main contribution is not necessarily damage. Yet, the Gauntlet can provide a lot of insight into that if not perfect: we get data on how they deal with various types of encounters, how many resources they need and want to beat any given type, which types of spells are valuable for given encounter type, etc.

[trtl]

I realize now that the intent of that phrase doesn't communicate well through text, though I feel it should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I'll substitute it for another one:

"Your results are only as good as your data"

And while the data is okay, I think it would be better if all builds got the same numbers of short rests at the same times.

[strangebloke]

I don't like the use of side kicks over regular party members that an actual player would be playing with, as it overly rewards an all-rounder build when, in an actual game, it's okay to rely on your party members in one area if that means you can more meaningful contribute in another.

This is true, and its one of 3 or 4 things that we'd like to alter in the future, just to mix it up. The problem is primarily that as soon as you get multiple fully constructed PCs there's loads of combinatorics. It gets complicated fast. IIRC Ludic brought up the idea of a cleric tank build that's designed to be unkillable and keep enemies away from allies - a lot less good if the allies are sorta derpy! But pairing that build with a melee brute would defeat the point since the melee brute would want to be in combat range. Similarly something like a bard or paladin can cover for weak saves, but if another character (like a monk) has very good saves that strength wouldn't be as easy to display. And so on.

I also don't see the need to stop the gauntlet once the character drops, seems like you should run them through all the encounters and at the end see how many times they dropped, this would at least lighten the impact of the ordering of the encounters.

This does make sense, and FWIW I do think that putting one of the hardest encounters first presents an issue in that it just gives you less to work with period.

Finally, I don't think the ability to get more or less short rests should be involved at all. Sure Leomund's Tiny Hut is a strong spell, everyone recognizes that, and a build that can cast that spell is stronger than one that is not. But, ultimately, it's an out of combat ability, which means that it's a lot more relevant at some tables than others.

I hope this helps, I really tried to think it through and offer some constructive criticism.

This I will disagree with. Everything in DND can be different at a given table. Some people hardly do combat at all, and for them "DND" is a fantasy setting in which to engage in freeform roleplay. Short rests are one of the things that can be different, sure, but we have lose recommendations of 2 or so over a long day, and the scenario has hard constraints on the number of rests, with a fixed time budget before the MFA completes his ritual mind controls everyone. And the way we set up rest opportunities, you can take a rest whenever, but to do so safely you either need to kill the roaming encounter (winter wolf / assassin) or succeed on a skill check at the two points offered, or have some kind of protection like Tiny Hut. So there's multiple ways for various builds to demonstrate their ability.

I think the nuke could have taken an additional rest actually, but opted to use the limited time budget to set up more phantom steeds. Probably a good idea in the situation.

The alternative would be ignoring time/resource budgeting entirely which is way more perverse IMO.

I think adding the short rests's problem is that it's subjective. Currently, most builds are measured by dpr. Dpr doesn't provide a complete picture of a build, not even close, but what it DOES do is be objective. This gauntlet is trading some objectivity for some perspective, which is a worthwhile endeavor, but I assume the goal is for the test to still be reasonably rigorous, and I don't think you can rigorously measure a characters ability to take a short rest. Taking a short rest, however, SIGNIFICANTLY affects the combat effectiveness of the build, so it's kind of ruining the good data.

Sure, but objective metrics are useless if they don't mean anything. Foot size can be objectively measured but its a terrible way to select for college admissions.

DPR is a horrible measure of anything because its a literal white room metric. "If the mid-AC boss monster was standing right next to you and doing nothing, you could punch it to death in 4 turns. Great build you've made." Its completely fascile.

I'd much rather create a compelling subjective narrative, than a useless objective one. And I think that in spite of being not-at-all scientific, the Gauntlet achieves that. Sure you can say "at my table the barbarian would have support that would make him perform better" but that's not actually a critique. That's just breaking down how your game differs from the Gauntlet, and making a logical extension of the narrative.

It just means valuing something more highly than it deserves.

Someone overrates zealots. Someone underrates them. You can say that anything is over- or under- rated and be correct, because its a passive verb that is disagreeing with the judgement of some invisible third party who's not in the room. "Food is overrated" is true. "Living is underrated" is true. "Dogs are overrated" is true.

So if I say "short rests are overrated" that's kind of just a meaningless statement. Its true, sometimes, or false, sometimes, and whether people agree or disagree with me will purely come down to what they imagine my actual position on short rests is - which, to be clear, I haven't said, because I wasted my time (and everyone's time) by saying "is overrated" which is a meaningless thing to say.

Sorry about my tangent. This is a pet peeve of mine. tl;dr: "saying 'tis overrated' is overrated."

The beholder has a 150ft cone of Antimagic. That covers a lot of space. It may not be the entire map, but it may as well be depending on the terrain and minions you pair it with.

Sure having a beholder is valid. Though FWIW if I were playing a caster I'd rather deal with a beholder + minions than the poltergeists. Those things are nasty for a caster to deal with.

I don't think that's what anyone was saying, just to be clear.

I disagree here. It wasn't your intent, but I think other people were being more condemning.

I realize now that the intent of that phrase doesn't communicate well through text, though I feel it should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I'll substitute it for another one:

"Your results are only as good as your data"

There's a huge gap between "pure objective data" and the kind of one-shots you actually see people do. This is way more controlled and challenging than the one-shots, but way more holistic and meaningful than white room DPR calculations.

[Psyren]

I'd much rather create a compelling subjective narrative, than a useless objective one.

I agree that the former is what "The Gauntlet" is ultimately setting out to do. And that might not be everyone's cup of tea and that's okay.

Which isn't to say it couldn't be improved, but I think most ideas for improving it will appeal to some people and turn off others.

Someone overrates zealots. Someone underrates them. You can say that anything is over- or under- rated and be correct, because its a passive verb that is disagreeing with the judgement of some invisible third party who's not in the room. "Food is overrated" is true. "Living is underrated" is true. "Dogs are overrated" is true.

So if I say "short rests are overrated" that's kind of just a meaningless statement. Its true, sometimes, or false, sometimes, and whether people agree or disagree with me will purely come down to what they imagine my actual position on short rests is - which, to be clear, I haven't said, because I wasted my time (and everyone's time) by saying "is overrated" which is a meaningless thing to say.

Sorry about my tangent. This is a pet peeve of mine. tl;dr: "saying 'tis overrated' is overrated."

+1000, especially the meaningless bit.

[Dr.Samurai]

Someone overrates zealots. Someone underrates them. You can say that anything is over- or under- rated and be correct, because its a passive verb that is disagreeing with the judgement of some invisible third party who's not in the room. "Food is overrated" is true. "Living is underrated" is true. "Dogs are overrated" is true.

So if I say "short rests are overrated" that's kind of just a meaningless statement. Its true, sometimes, or false, sometimes, and whether people agree or disagree with me will purely come down to what they imagine my actual position on short rests is - which, to be clear, I haven't said, because I wasted my time (and everyone's time) by saying "is overrated" which is a meaningless thing to say.

Sorry about my tangent. This is a pet peeve of mine. tl;dr: "saying 'tis overrated' is overrated."

I don't think it's quite this nebulous or mysterious. It's no different than making the claim "zealots are the best" in the first place. In any event, I went into this in depth in the thread that got locked, and I provided more explanation above, so I don't think I'm making a vacuous statement that can't be analyzed or is devoid of meaning.

Sure having a beholder is valid. Though FWIW if I were playing a caster I'd rather deal with a beholder + minions than the poltergeists. Those things are nasty for a caster to deal with.

I'm not vested in needing to see a beholder encounter but I don't agree that these things are just "not in the game". There were dead magic zones in previous editions, there's manifest zones in Eberron that can hinder spellcasting, there's monsters that are immune to spells, and there's the beholder. I don't think we have to force anti-magic encounters in the gauntlet, but I don't think there's a reason to argue they're inappropriate either.

Also, I may need to watch the encounter again because I recall thinking the poltergeists were more a nuisance than anything else (wait, maybe I'm confusing that with another encounter, the second encounter maybe).

I disagree here.

Well, fair enough. For my part, that's not what I was implying.

[Gignere]

I realize now that the intent of that phrase doesn't communicate well through text, though I feel it should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I'll substitute it for another one:

"Your results are only as good as your data"

And while the data is okay, I think it would be better if all builds got the same numbers of short rests at the same times.

I believe the barbarian would have gotten a short rest if it made it through the first part of the gauntlet. However, since the barbarian was killed the short rest is a moot point.

[strangebloke]

I don't think it's quite this nebulous or mysterious. It's no different than making the claim "zealots are the best" in the first place. In any event, I went into this in depth in the thread that got locked, and I provided more explanation above, so I don't think I'm making a vacuous statement that can't be analyzed or is devoid of meaning.

Sure I'm just rambling

I'm not vested in needing to see a beholder encounter but I don't agree that these things are just "not in the game". There were dead magic zones in previous editions, there's manifest zones in Eberron that can hinder spellcasting, there's monsters that are immune to spells, and there's the beholder. I don't think we have to force anti-magic encounters in the gauntlet, but I don't think there's a reason to argue they're inappropriate either.

Again we're trying to stick to core. Stuff from specific settings, especially stuff from prior editions, is definitely not included there.

Beholders or Rakshasa would make sense.

Also, I may need to watch the encounter again because I recall thinking the poltergeists were more a nuisance than anything else (wait, maybe I'm confusing that with another encounter, the second encounter maybe).

The Poltergeists killed the simulacrum, heavily damaged the nuke, and dropped the rogue to zero. Short of the final encounter it was easily the worst performance with the nuke.

The second encounter with the wraiths was a speedbump at most, though with unlucky rolling it could be really bad

Well, fair enough. For my part, that's not what I was implying.

I understood your intent, I was just speaking about my perception of others

[Dr.Samurai]

Ah yeah, I was confusing it with the wraith encounter. I have to re-watch the poltergeist encounter. I do recall the sim teleporting away (I think with Contingency) and getting ganked right where it teleported to. That was tough to watch lol. You think he's out of danger, but then no.

@Gignere: I think that's a good point. It wouldn't have made sense for Nuke to short rest after the first encounter because they barely took any damage (I don't recall if they even took 1 hit). Whereas the zealot, had they survived, would have needed to rest to spend hit dice. I understand trtl's point about wanting to standardize it, but one way or another everyone is going to have different experiences going through these encounters and I think whether they choose to rest or not is an interesting variation that's worth keeping.

[Thunderous Mojo]

. "Dogs are overrated" is true.

Amused by the rant. Something being ‘True’ is an easier state to achieve than being logically ‘Sound’.

As an aside, I think one can make a very sound, scientific argument that dogs and their relationship with humans, is certainly not overrated.

[Frogreaver]

Again we're trying to stick to core. Stuff from specific settings, especially stuff from prior editions, is definitely not included there.

One small observation - I see nothing in core about a giant arena that's being filled with water either.

[strangebloke]

One small observation - I see nothing in core about a giant arena that's being filled with water either.

In addition to the PHB chapter 9 rules regarding underwater combat, drowning, etc., there's also DMG116: Unusual Environments - Underwater which establishes things like encounter distance underwater with obscurement. In addition on page 122 of the DMG, we see the following text: "For example, a trap that causes a room to slowly flood works best as a complex trap. On the trap's turn, the water level rises. After several rounds, the room is completely flooded."

Water existing and players fighting in it is clearly assumed and supported. Huge areas where magic completely cannot work at all are not treated in core AFAIK.

And frankly I almost never see them in modules or in actual play. THE ONLY place I see them discussed is as a 'gotcha' in caster v martial debates.

[Dork_Forge]

In addition to the PHB chapter 9 rules regarding underwater combat, drowning, etc., there's also DMG116: Unusual Environments - Underwater which establishes things like encounter distance underwater with obscurement. In addition on page 122 of the DMG, we see the following text: "For example, a trap that causes a room to slowly flood works best as a complex trap. On the trap's turn, the water level rises. After several rounds, the room is completely flooded."

Water existing and players fighting in it is clearly assumed and supported. Huge areas where magic completely cannot work at all are not treated in core AFAIK.

And frankly I almost never see them in modules or in actual play. THE ONLY place I see them discussed is as a 'gotcha' in caster v martial debates.

I get where you're coming from, stuff like underwater combat is obviously going to be more common than antimagic, but you can't really argue it's not core:

- The PHB contains not only Antimagic Field, but also in 'The Weave of Magic' break out box on page 205 it mentions that certain areas make magic 'work in unpredictable ways - or not at all.'

- The Beholder is not only in the monster manual, it's an iconic property protected by copyright and used on the cover of at least two 5e books.

If the argument comes down to 'how realistic/probably/common is the encounter' then I get it, but that's not really a standard that can be leaned on much when the first encounter of the gauntlet is so ridiculous.

[gloryblaze]

I get where you're coming from, stuff like underwater combat is obviously going to be more common than antimagic, but you can't really argue it's not core:

- The PHB contains not only Antimagic Field, but also in 'The Weave of Magic' break out box on page 205 it mentions that certain areas make magic 'work in unpredictable ways - or not at all.'

- The Beholder is not only in the monster manual, it's an iconic property protected by copyright and used on the cover of at least two 5e books.

If the argument comes down to 'how realistic/probably/common is the encounter' then I get it, but that's not really a standard that can be leaned on much when the first encounter of the gauntlet is so ridiculous.

Building off of this—while mechanics for dead-magic zones are not provided in core, they are in Tasha’s, which is at least somewhat setting neutral. Rolling a 06-10 on the “Unraveling Magic Effects” table results in:

The region becomes a dead-magic zone for 1 hour. For the duration, the entire region is affected by the antimatic field spell.

So if you felt like incorporating a dead-magic zone into the “lore” of a future gauntlet (the same way this one’s lore involves a sea temple), you could represent it with an arbitrarily large antimatic field spell with a permanent duration—or you could use an “unraveling magic” area that only goes dead for an hour a time, perhaps.

Of course antimagic is far from a necessity for the exercise to be fun and valid, but it might be cool to show off how a full-caster build deals with such. Though you could just as easily use core for this—you could have a circular tower room with a small opening in the top from which a beholder looks down, bathing the whole room in an AMF. Put an encounter in the tower room (maybe an iron golem or something) and then have the beholder be an encounter itself later on once you get to the top of the tower. You could even have NPC Priests or Acolytes or whatever on the tower roof healing the beholder if the player thinks to snipe them through the hole early with sharpshooter or whatnot

[Dork_Forge]

Building off of this—while mechanics for dead-magic zones are not provided in core, they are in Tasha’s, which is at least somewhat setting neutral. Rolling a 06-10 on the “Unraveling Magic Effects” table results in:



So if you felt like incorporating a dead-magic zone into the “lore” of a future gauntlet (the same way this one’s lore involves a sea temple), you could represent it with an arbitrarily large antimatic field spell with a permanent duration—or you could use an “unraveling magic” area that only goes dead for an hour a time, perhaps.

Of course antimagic is far from a necessity for the exercise to be fun and valid, but it might be cool to show off how a full-caster build deals with such. Though you could just as easily use core for this—you could have a circular tower room with a small opening in the top from which a beholder looks down, bathing the whole room in an AMF. Put an encounter in the tower room (maybe an iron golem or something) and then have the beholder be an encounter itself later on once you get to the top of the tower. You could even have NPC Priests or Acolytes or whatever on the tower roof healing the beholder if the player thinks to snipe them through the hole early with sharpshooter or whatnot

This is a good addition, in terms of justification the Eberron book has a section for 'Eldritch Machines' where one of them, I think the Spell Sink, just creates an AMF.

In terms of comparing them in the books, it's also worth noting that you really need rules to fight underwater. You don't need rules for an AMF, it's covered in the spell. So one will have a much heavier presence on that premise alone.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is a good addition, in terms of justification the Eberron book has a section for 'Eldritch Machines' where one of them, I think the Spell Sink, just creates an AMF.

In terms of comparing them in the books, it's also worth noting that you really need rules to fight underwater. You don't need rules for an AMF, it's covered in the spell. So one will have a much heavier presence on that premise alone.

If I've learned anything about 5e, it's that "magic" isn't actually a simple concept, and determining what is "magical" can cause a great deal of debate.

Rules for underwater combat exist by the way! Actually, it's pretty functionally similar to referencing a spell when an area of antimagic comes up so I'm very confused what point you're trying to make here.

[Dork_Forge]

If I've learned anything about 5e, it's that "magic" isn't actually a simple concept, and determining what is "magical" can cause a great deal of debate.

Rules for underwater combat exist by the way! Actually, it's pretty functionally similar to referencing a spell when an area of antimagic comes up so I'm very confused what point you're trying to make here.

I know they exist, my point was that underwater combat needs rules around it, and because its... Just being underwater that means it needs a section in the PHB.

Antimagic doesn't need the same because it's outlined in the Antimagic Field spell. So pointing to underwater combat being core because it has a section in the PHB, but discounting Antimagic for the same reason is wrong imo.

As for 'what counts as magical' this is something that is not limited to AMFs, guidance for that is needed in general and it being... Not the clearest is an established problem of 5e.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I know they exist, my point was that underwater combat needs rules around it, and because its... Just being underwater that means it needs a section in the PHB.

Antimagic doesn't need the same because it's outlined in the Antimagic Field spell. So pointing to underwater combat being core because it has a section in the PHB, but discounting Antimagic for the same reason is wrong imo.

As for 'what counts as magical' this is something that is not limited to AMFs, guidance for that is needed in general and it being... Not the clearest is an established problem of 5e.

It's a good thing we have the Antimagic Field spell to reference within the PHB, offering us guidelines on what an antimagical zone could be. It would be a shame if such a thing weren't included within the rules, then what could we do. They must have thought the same thing for Underwater Combat, but since it's not really a viable "spell" they chose to include it as an actual rule instead.

Or to be less sarcastic - Antimagic Field is, functionally, a rule. Other antimagic effects reference it, it's not included just to be a spell, so you trying to draw a functional difference here doesn't make sense.

The argument to me doesn't even seem to be against Antimagic on principle either, it's against specific kinds of it that don't exist in all settings. Aside from Antimagic Field and specific effects the duplicate it, there aren't any rules on what actually damages the weave. That's the issue. Water is water. Being underwater in the elemental plane of water or an oversized swimming pool is the exact same thing. An area of dead magic has no attached rules, you have to make them up. If we want to have as close to a "generalized core gameplay experience" we don't go making things up, we find recognized substitutes like a Beholder.

To go back more in the discussion though - what exactly are the merits to just adding antimagic zones specifically? They don't really inhibit martials much, if at all beyond a small handful of exceptions. Creatures that can project a zone or cast the spell are potentially just as dangerous to a caster as they are to a martial because that's not the only thing they do. To suggest we should just have some random dead magic zones around just seems like a way to inconvenience a caster specifically. The scenarios in the gauntlet don't seem intended for one specific type of build to be challenged, so creating obstacles that are only a challenge to one specific type of build seems pretty pointless to me.

[Dork_Forge]

It's a good thing we have the Antimagic Field spell to reference within the PHB, offering us guidelines on what an antimagical zone could be. It would be a shame if such a thing weren't included within the rules, then what could we do. They must have thought the same thing for Underwater Combat, but since it's not really a viable "spell" they chose to include it as an actual rule instead.

Or to be less sarcastic - Antimagic Field is, functionally, a rule. Other antimagic effects reference it, it's not included just to be a spell, so you trying to draw a functional difference here doesn't make sense.

Godot, we don't disagree.

Strangebloke seemed to take the position of AMFs aren't core, but underwater combat is because there's a section on it in the PHB.

My response was they are core, because of the AMF spell and box in the spell section.

I am not making a distinction, I'm pointing out both are core.

The argument to me doesn't even seem to be against Antimagic on principle either, it's against specific kinds of it that don't exist in all settings. Aside from Antimagic Field and specific effects the duplicate it, there aren't any rules on what actually damages the weave. That's the issue. Water is water. Being underwater in the elemental plane of water or an oversized swimming pool is the exact same thing. An area of dead magic has no attached rules, you have to make them up. If we want to have as close to a "generalized core gameplay experience" we don't go making things up, we find recognized substitutes like a Beholder.

Why do you need rules on 'what damages the Weave?' It's not a door, it's a feature of a region. It's there because either the setting says it is or the DM wants it to be. That's kind of like asking why there's a lake here, it's irrelevant to playing in the lake.

As for playing inside them, as you keep reiterating, the AMF spell covers what it's like.

To go back more in the discussion though - what exactly are the merits to just adding antimagic zones specifically? They don't really inhibit martials much, if at all beyond a small handful of exceptions. Creatures that can project a zone or cast the spell are potentially just as dangerous to a caster as they are to a martial because that's not the only thing they do. To suggest we should just have some random dead magic zones around just seems like a way to inconvenience a caster specifically. The scenarios in the gauntlet don't seem intended for one specific type of build to be challenged, so creating obstacles that are only a challenge to one specific type of build seems pretty pointless to me.

I wasn't advocating for it personally, I just had an issue with why it was dismissed, but since you're asking I have to point out that the reasoning you're using is a bit... off.

There are 13 classes in the game, of those only there are only four that don't get Spellcasting as a feature, and even those classes have plenty of potential to be magical and get caught out in an AMF.

I'd wager that an AMF would negatively affect most builds, not just specific ones, and in the format of the gauntlet it would always affect the spellcaster sidekick and the magic items given.

I don't think an AMF needs to be included, but I don't really agree with the reasons presented so far for excluding them either.

[LudicSavant]

Strangebloke said huge areas of antimagic aren't core as far as he knows, as opposed to beholders and the antimagic field spell.

Sure having a beholder is valid.

Huge areas where magic completely cannot work at all are not treated in core AFAIK.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Godot, we don't disagree.

Strangebloke seemed to take the position of AMFs aren't core, but underwater combat is because there's a section on it in the PHB.

My response was they are core, because of the AMF spell and box in the spell section.

I am not making a distinction, I'm pointing out both are core.

We do disagree, because non specific anti-magic zones do not have rules associated with them. They have, at best, a slight nod in the section of the PHB you quoted which only directly mentions the Antimagic Field spell as one of the instances of being able to damage the weave.

Why do you need rules on 'what damages the Weave?' It's not a door, it's a feature of a region. It's there because either the setting says it is or the DM wants it to be. That's kind of like asking why there's a lake here, it's irrelevant to playing in the lake.

"Because I said so" is going to get people looking at you funny when you're trying to make a standardized gameplay experience. You seem to really be skipping over that part here, as well as the "no setting specific" guidelines. The goal of the Gauntlet is to be a standard test (in such a way that any new encounters/gauntlets would be made under these standards) and introducing abritrary variables that don't exist explicitly in the books is what I'm led to believe they mean as "core" when Strangebloke also confirms that Beholders are on the table.

I wasn't advocating for it personally, I just had an issue with why it was dismissed, but since you're asking I have to point out that the reasoning you're using is a bit... off.

There are 13 classes in the game, of those only there are only four that don't get Spellcasting as a feature, and even those classes have plenty of potential to be magical and get caught out in an AMF.

Which is exactly a point I touched on in my first comment - not everyone is going to agree on what class abilities are "magical effects" and even with sage advice given on it, people still argue. Can we agree at least that in a primarily combat focused presentation (which the gauntlet seems to be) such areas are pretty likely not to actually affect a martial?

I don't think an AMF needs to be included, but I don't really agree with the reasons presented so far for excluding them either.

It makes sense that you wouldn't agree because I believe you've reached an entirely different conclusion on why and even what is being excluded.

[Dork_Forge]

We do disagree, because non specific anti-magic zones do not have rules associated with them. They have, at best, a slight nod in the section of the PHB you quoted which only directly mentions the Antimagic Field spell as one of the instances of being able to damage the weave.

I truly have no idea why this has become such a big deal. Beholder statblock? References the spell. Tasha's unraveling magic section? References the spell. Spell Sink Eldritch Machine? References the spell.

Is it really controversial to say that the rules for this are just 'use the effects of the spell?' Because that is clearly how WotC handles it across several books.

"Because I said so" is going to get people looking at you funny when you're trying to make a standardized gameplay experience. You seem to really be skipping over that part here, as well as the "no setting specific" guidelines. The goal of the Gauntlet is to be a standard test (in such a way that any new encounters/gauntlets would be made under these standards) and introducing abritrary variables that don't exist explicitly in the books is what I'm led to believe they mean as "core" when Strangebloke also confirms that Beholders are on the table.

The entire thing is 'because I said so.' That's largely what D&D in general is.

The gauntlet gives the veneer of being based on an actual adventure, it then presents a first encounter that makes no sense whatsoever. Undead, Water Weirds, Hunter Sharks, Chuul, a Hydra that lairs inside an active temple apparently... of course they're all in the immediate area and all attack the party but not each other!

Of course they act with a certain degree of tactical aspect despite the fact their intelligence varies and they're not aligned.

The 'temple' and all that's in it is there because someone said so. And the reasoning so far has really just been a veneer of mimicking an adventure or a reply of maybe the designer will get into it in the future.

Debating the value of including something is one thing, debating rationalizing why it's there can apply to anything and literally doesn't matter apparently.

Which is exactly a point I touched on in my first comment - not everyone is going to agree on what class abilities are "magical effects" and even with sage advice given on it, people still argue. Can we agree at least that in a primarily combat focused presentation (which the gauntlet seems to be) such areas are pretty likely not to actually affect a martial?

No, we can't agree on that. Rangers and Paladins will care. A whole bunch of builds based on the other martials will certainly care or be completely shut down. All of them will lose the benefit of their magical weapon.

Some martial builds will be affected less but framing it like the overwhelming majority of builds will get nerfed substantially is just untrue.

And if you really, honestly, truly, care about this, then how is the first encounter okay? Genuine question because it's so far in the extreme that it may as well be to non-AOE characters what an AMF is to caster. Or how the flooding disproportionately affects martials vs casters?

It makes sense that you wouldn't agree because I believe you've reached an entirely different conclusion on why and even what is being excluded.

Not sure why you felt the need to add this, or persist when I made it clear I wasn't advocating specifically for it to be included. Realistically speaking I doubt anything I say will impact the Gauntlet, so who cares?

[Amnestic]

Again we're trying to stick to core. Stuff from specific settings, especially stuff from prior editions, is definitely not included there.

Harengon and Hexblade, of course, being in core

[Eldariel]

Harengon and Hexblade, of course, being in core

The gauntlet is designed with core monsters and features. The builds can be whatever.

[strangebloke]

Harengon and Hexblade, of course, being in core

These tests are designed to handle any build that people show up with. That potentially includes warforged characters, blood hunters, chronomancers, and other setting-specific elements, and that's why the Gauntlet can't have setting-specific elements.

But perhaps more to the point:

While I can maybe see that an antimagic field is really interesting to some people, or something they'd like to see, I can't at all believe that giant region-wide antimagic fields are such a common staple of high level DND that people can't view a test as legit without them. The rest of the system doesn't seem to indicate this. They're not in core outside of oblique references, they've got limited mechanical support even 7 years into 5e's lifecycle, and while I'm sure there's some module that has them I've never heard of it. Do you guys disagree with this? Do you have antimagic fields in loads of your campaigns?

[Psyren]

Honestly, I think anything official should be on the table rather than drawing arbitrary core/non-core/setting-specific distinctions. If a Owlin Spellcaster Sidekick using Vortex Warp can cause something fun to happen I'd rather see that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

snip

I'm just going to say this one more time, on it's own, in the hopes that you read and absorb this.

The issue is not about the inclusion of the spell it effects that directly reference it, it is about the concept of random areas of anti magic as a hazard because there are, as far as anyone had been able to present here, no examples of such a thing existing. The rules don't really set any expectations that an adventurer will encounter an area of anti magic that isn't being projected by a beholder.

I feel like everything I've said to you here has been ignored as you've latched onto an entirely separate idea that's not being discussed.

Honestly, I think anything official should be on the table rather than drawing arbitrary core/non-core/setting-specific distinctions. If a Owlin Spellcaster Sidekick using Vortex Warp can cause something fun to happen I'd rather see that.

The core/non-core thing isn't about the build presented, it's about the challenges they encounter.

Goodness gracious, I feel that's been made abundantly clear here.

---

Like why are we even on this anti magic thing if even the people arguing for it's inclusion are saying that it doesn't matter one way or another? If you don't care about it's inclusion, why is this the sticking point you're choosing to use to question the reasoning of the people running it. They've explained why such a thing is unlikely to be included, you don't actually care that much yet you argue incessantly.

[Psyren]

The core/non-core thing isn't about the build presented, it's about the challenges they encounter.

Goodness gracious, I feel that's been made abundantly clear here.

Even just for challenges I think there's good stuff outside of core. Complex Traps are in Xanathar's, Tasha's has additional Natural Hazard rules, MPMM modern monster designs could be interesting etc. Something to consider for future iterations.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm just going to say this one more time, on it's own, in the hopes that you read and absorb this.

The issue is not about the inclusion of the spell it effects that directly reference it, it is about the concept of random areas of anti magic as a hazard because there are, as far as anyone had been able to present here, no examples of such a thing existing. The rules don't really set any expectations that an adventurer will encounter an area of anti magic that isn't being projected by a beholder.

I feel like everything I've said to you here has been ignored as you've latched onto an entirely separate idea that's not being discussed.

The urge to justify it in some rules basis is odd and unnecessary. Why is this room affected? Because it's part of a trap where an item projecting a field is being used, or a Beholder's eye is mounted for the purpose etc. etc. whatever justification.

The why literally does not matter in the sense it's being argued about. Again, that applies to literally everything. It's all arbitrary encounter design.

There doesn't need to be a specific example of an antimagic trap to make use of it. That is a completely arbitrary line in the sand for encounter design.

You really can't point to what 'the game expects' like it means anything when the gauntlet by design flies in the face of what the game expects of characters.

The core/non-core thing isn't about the build presented, it's about the challenges they encounter.

And there's no real reason for that to be limited, especially when the builds being used aren't. If anything it's more realistic that settings and supplements get broken down into parts when DMs make their own encounters.

Like why are we even on this anti magic thing if even the people arguing for it's inclusion are saying that it doesn't matter one way or another? If you don't care about it's inclusion, why is this the sticking point you're choosing to use to question the reasoning of the people running it. They've explained why such a thing is unlikely to be included, you don't actually care that much yet you argue incessantly.

As half of that argument, hello pot, I'm kettle.

It's a thread, stuff like this happens, you can not feel strongly about X whilst still not liking the reason it wasn't included.

I've remarked during the exchange I don't understand why it became a big deal, but I'm just going to point out that the majority of it is really just replying to you. If you're so confused why we're on a topic, but you keep replying about it, then I really don't know what to tell you.