[Rant] Why is everything new spectral?

[Schwann145]

And for me, "spectral" maximizes that diversity:

1) How solid / obstructive is it? DM determines.
2) How sturdy / climbable is it? DM determines.
3) How flammable / brittle is it? DM determines.
3) How much does it have to look like a branch, instead of being refluffable as something else, like a tentacle or chains? DM determines.

The more rigidly you define it as a real actual tree branch and real actual roots, the less implicit freedom there is for a DM to do what they need/want to do with it for their campaign.

Having a specific mechanical tag like 'Spectral' explicitly says 'the things with this keyword are supposed to be unreal things' not 'you can do it how you like, its up to you'.

NichG has the right of it here.
To address the underlined point: why do you come to that conclusion? As I already said earlier, "spectral" comes with it's own narrative weight. You seem to be conflating "spectral" with "automatically easier to Rule 0," and there's no real justification to support that.

The answer to your example list of questions is always "DM determines." Being spectral does absolutely nothing to change that. Being purely physical wood also does nothing to change that.

World Tree branches that allow a short teleport are getting too much attention. Can we look at the Swarmkeeper's Swarm instead for a moment?
The Swarm is said to be "intangible." Intangible literally means "unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence." So the default game assumption is that the Swarm can't actually help you in combat, because it can't touch the enemies to attack or harass them.
Sure, making them actual bugs comes with some baggage (and much better narrative weight for a nature-based Ranger trying to be actually nature-based!) but it also means they actually do the job they're supposed to do without requiring a redefinition words.

[Psyren]

...it's not so much better that it justifies every ability that could possibly have some impact on the game world beyond its listed effect being made spectral for no other reason, especially if the spectral effects are actually physical and real, and are only made spectral (as you suggest) to ward off problem players liable to throw tantrums at every DM ruling.

I understand you feel that way about the rationale and I'm happy to leave it there.

Indeed, if the default assumption isn't that spectral effects are non-physical, then it's hardly better at all. In the world of the game, you just end up with a bunch of effects that are weirdly spectral even though there's no reason whatever power is behind them would make them spectral.

It's a cosmic extraplanar tree, that might not even be a physical tree! If you're somewhere like Athas, people might not even know what real branches are, much less being able to explain how they're emerging from the barbarian's posterior.

NichG has the right of it here.
To address the underlined point: why do you come to that conclusion? As I already said earlier, "spectral" comes with it's own narrative weight. You seem to be conflating "spectral" with "automatically easier to Rule 0," and there's no real justification to support that.

The answer to your example list of questions is always "DM determines." Being spectral does absolutely nothing to change that. Being purely physical wood also does nothing to change that.

World Tree branches that allow a short teleport are getting too much attention. Can we look at the Swarmkeeper's Swarm instead for a moment?
The Swarm is said to be "intangible." Intangible literally means "unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence." So the default game assumption is that the Swarm can't actually help you in combat, because it can't touch the enemies to attack or harass them.
Sure, making them actual bugs comes with some baggage (and much better narrative weight for a nature-based Ranger trying to be actually nature-based!) but it also means they actually do the job they're supposed to do without requiring a redefinition words.

Intangible things affect combat all the time. Like specters.

[NontheistCleric]

It's a cosmic extraplanar tree, that might not even be a physical tree! If you're somewhere like Athas, people might not even know what real branches are, much less being able to explain how they're emerging from the barbarian's posterior!

In most depictions I've encountered, the World Tree is a physical thing. Yes, it's location is extraplanar, but it's still physical. So what if people in some places don't know what branches are? In the overwhelming majority of campaign settings, they do, and wherever they don't, there's still no need to default to spectral.

Besides, it doesn't have to be about the World Tree barbarian in particular. Multiple classes have spectral abilities that didn't need to be spectral (it does make sense in some cases, like the Ancestral Guardian).

Intangible things affect combat all the time. Like specters.

Yes, and the Swarmkeeper's swarm can affect combat too. That's not the problem here. The problem is that unlike the specter, there wasn't really a good reason to make the swarm intangible (being marginally less powerful and more convenient is not a good reason, considering that there are many spells and other abilities that do so much more). It just doesn't fulfil the fantasy a lot of people have when they think of being the keeper of a swarm.

[Psyren]

In most depictions I've encountered, the World Tree is a physical thing. Yes, it's location is extraplanar, but it's still physical.

Being physical outside the material plane doesn't preclude being spectral on the material plane, nor vice-versa. So even if it is only ever a physical tree on its plane of origin (and in no way representative of anything else like a metaphor for enlightenment, psychopompive passageway etc), that doesn't make this creative choice of theirs inherently wrong or right. What matters to me is the why, which to be clear I'm only speculating about, but I think my reasoning is at least plausible.

Besides, it doesn't have to be about the World Tree barbarian in particular. Multiple classes have spectral abilities that didn't need to be spectral (it does make sense in some cases, like the Ancestral Guardian).

I'm not saying I went over every single instance/use of the word throughout all of D&D 5e and cosigned each one. Just that the handful of examples in this thread seem inoffensive to me.

Yes, and the Swarmkeeper's swarm can affect combat too. That's not the problem here. The problem is that unlike the specter, there wasn't really a good reason to make the swarm intangible (being marginally less powerful and more convenient is not a good reason, considering that there are many spells and other abilities that do so much more). It just doesn't fulfil the fantasy a lot of people have when they think of being the keeper of a swarm.

I think there's plenty of good reasons why not forcing every player who wants to be a default Swarmkeeper to have to explain physical bugs living on / crawling all over them could be desirable. And I'm not saying there's no fun at all to be had from such a Pigpen concept; I myself pitched a Goblin Swarmkeeper covered in actual bugs in a previous thread that I'd love to play one day.

[Blatant Beast]

The default should be "abilities do what they say they do." Do you disagree with that?

Spectral branches lend themselves better to that philosophy than real ones.



Yeah. and most 8 Str Halfling players wouldn't ask if they can give the Tarrasque an atomic wedgie. But nothing is stopping them. And of the likely few that do, most would accept their DM's "no" pretty easily - don't you think?

So we're down to a fraction of a fraction that might result in an argument in the first place, let alone the proportion of that that actually would.

I am finding this response a bit incoherent and confusing.
My understanding was:

Your counter to the position that preponderance of spectral abilities is aesthetically unsatisfying, was to firmly state: Feature, not bug…(thanks Balmer🤦)…and then followed that up by stating a player could still ask to climb the spectral branches of the World Tree.

Yet, you are claiming above, that most DMs would say no, and most players would not ask in the first place, because of the likely answer of ‘No’.

The relief you proposed is no relief at all, as it is likely to be ineffective.

The issue at stake is not one of Table Arguments, the issue at stake is that aesthetically, there seems to be many people, (here at least), that want things to be more substantial than ghostly, unsubstantiated effects.

The Ghostly effects in XGE make sense to me, at least for the Ancestor Barb
.
The Shepherd Druid might be improved if one could Turn or damage the Short Rest Recharging Spirit Summons, as many agree the Shepherd Druid is a bit overtunned.

[NontheistCleric]

Being physical outside the material plane doesn't preclude being spectral on the material plane, nor vice-versa. So even if it is only ever a physical tree on its plane of origin (and in no way representative of anything else like a metaphor for enlightenment, psychopompive passageway etc), that doesn't make this creative choice of theirs inherently wrong or right. What matters to me is the why, which to be clear I'm only speculating about, but I think my reasoning is at least plausible.

Sure, it's plausible. That isn't what makes the creative choice wrong or right–it's the decision to lock players out of that creative decision by default that I think is wrong, especially when there's no particular reason for the ability to be spectral.

Granted, the designers have done far worse things before. Still, if I were rewriting the ability, I would make it clear that players get to choose what their branches look like (and that the DM gets to decide exactly what kinds of uses the branches can be put to. Maybe even have a general rule somewhere stating DM supremacy regarding abilities that could conceivably have some function beyone their listed mechanical effect).

I'm not saying I went over every single instance/use of the word throughout all of D&D 5e and cosigned each one. Just that the handful of examples in this thread seem inoffensive to me.

I don't think any single example is offensive in itself. If there were just one subclass where there was a spectral ability even though the class didn't clearly have anything to do with spectral things, we'd probably all shrug and write it off as some occasional weirdness. It's when the spectral/intangible default abilities get so prolific that it starts to look egregious.

I think there's plenty of good reasons why not forcing every player who wants to be a default Swarmkeeper to have to explain physical bugs living on / crawling all over them could be desirable. And I'm not saying there's no fun at all to be had from such a Pigpen concept; I myself pitched a Goblin Swarmkeeper covered in actual bugs in a previous thread that I'd love to play one day.

There are also plenty of good reasons to not force every player who wants to be a default Swarmkeeper to have an intangible swarm (and they don't need to have the swarm crawling all over them–for example, they might have a bunch of bees that they transport in an artificial hive). Which is why the best thing is to give people options, instead of making the default intangible (though I maintain that if there were to be a default, it would make more sense for the swarm to be physical. Ideally, I think the default should be physical, but there ought to be options making it clear that it could be intangible, if the player wished, and that the swarm doesn't have to be crawling on the character's body). It would only take an extra sentence or two.

[Psyren]

Your counter to the position that preponderance of spectral abilities is aesthetically unsatisfying, was to firmly state: Feature, not bug…(thanks Balmer🤦)…and then followed that up by stating a player could still ask to climb the spectral branches of the World Tree.

Yet, you are claiming above, that most DMs would say no, and most players would not ask in the first place, because of the likely answer of ‘No’.

I don't see what's contradictory about these two points. A default is just that, a default - not an interdiction.

The relief you proposed is no relief at all, as it is likely to be ineffective.

How would you measure effectiveness?

The issue at stake is not one of Table Arguments, the issue at stake is that aesthetically, there seems to be many people, (here at least), that want things to be more substantial than ghostly, unsubstantiated effects.

The Ghostly effects in XGE make sense to me, at least for the Ancestor Barb
.
The Shepherd Druid might be improved if one could Turn or damage the Short Rest Recharging Spirit Summons, as many agree the Shepherd Druid is a bit overtunned.

Spirit Totem is far and away the least consequential feature in the Shepherd Druid. The issue is that SD takes an already overtuned spell (Conjure Animals) and removes the lone weaknesses it had with Mighty Summons and Faithful Summoner.

[Blatant Beast]

How would you measure effectiveness?

In terms of Spectral abilities, my preferred solution would be for physical abilities with Sidebar clarifications. If the concern is armor becoming damaged from World Tree roots, then the ability can specify that “no armor was damaged in the filming err use of this ability”.

By RAW, when and if an object is damaged is purely within the bailiwick of DM fiat. In theory a DM could rule that the armor worn by a Hexblade that used the Armor of Agathys spell was damaged by the cold.

Most would opine that is a sketchy ruling on the part of this theoretical DM, but it is valid by RAW.

Physical Abilities can be written in such a fashion that those physical abilities just work, similarly to Spectral abilities.

The other issue is, (in true D&D fashion), spectral abilities and spirits are not clearly defined, and the Devs really need a thesaurus. XGE would lead one to believe that Spirits are not undead, cannot be physically interacted with, and have a narrowly defined effects on the material world.

(Cue up the song from the Police, “Spirits in the Material World”).

Of course, TCE, violates this with the Order of the Scribe having a spectral book that is subject to Dispel Magic. The Chiwinga further muddies the waters, because now we have a physical statblock for a ‘spirit’…a nature spirit.

Spectral Abilities may ‘just work’ in terms of mechanics, but in terms of being a firmly defined Narrative and Mechanical Concept, (like the Undead for example), there is no consistency.

As a player and a DM, I find this troubling.

Spirit Totem is far and away the least consequential feature in the Shepherd Druid. The issue is that SD takes an already overtuned spell (Conjure Animals) and removes the lone weaknesses it had with Mighty Summons and Faithful Summoner.

I think you might have mistaken the intent of my statement. I was not singling out Spirit Totem as the driver of the Shepherd Druid’s power. I was pointing out that even if the Devs added interactivity to the ability, (the word Totem would imply the Spirit is tied to a physical object, definitionally), an interrupted Spirit Totem would not drastically impact the overall power level of the Druid.

It is an ability that does not need to be ‘spectral’ in the sense of no interactivity.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

There are also plenty of good reasons to not force every player who wants to be a default Swarmkeeper to have an intangible swarm (and they don't need to have the swarm crawling all over them–for example, they might have a bunch of bees that they transport in an artificial hive). Which is why the best thing is to give people options, instead of making the default intangible (though I maintain that if there were to be a default, it would make more sense for the swarm to be physical. Ideally, I think the default should be physical, but there ought to be options making it clear that it could be intangible, if the player wished, and that the swarm doesn't have to be crawling on the character's body). It would only take an extra sentence or two.

Regarding swarmkeeper specifically, the swarm shouldn't be intangible when read in conjunction with the actual class features. Most of the class abilities are about interacting with objects in meatspace. It does physical damage. It moves creatures both voluntarily and involuntarily. It offers cover against ranged attacks! Explain to me how a group of intangible spirits are blocking a forking arrow!

The only reason it was made intangible is so those class features can't be temporarily turned off by gusts of wind, AE damage effects or fire -- all typical combat tactics against swarms. And that's a terrible reason, especially since there's nothing interesting or unique about the subclass features otherwise. It's just a collection of generic abilities collected from other sources and slammed together. Extra damage on one attack a round has been a standard feature since 2014. So have stepping after attacking or applying forced movement riders to attacks. The level 15 bonus action teleport is straight out of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes; the only difference is that the shadar'kai version from 2016 or whatever was usable 1/LR, while the swarmkeeper and MMM shadar-kai get proficiency/LR uses. God knows they'd have had to spend a little more time thinking about the subclass abilities if they could be turned off by fireball for a round. It's a kludge compensating for ultra-generic design.

[Amnestic]

Regarding swarmkeeper specifically, the swarm shouldn't be intangible when read in conjunction with the actual class features. Most of the class abilities are about interacting with objects in meatspace. It does physical damage. It moves creatures both voluntarily and involuntarily. It offers cover against ranged attacks! Explain to me how a group of intangible spirits are blocking a forking arrow!

The only reason it was made intangible is so those class features can't be temporarily turned off by gusts of wind, AE damage effects or fire -- all typical combat tactics against swarms. And that's a terrible reason, especially since there's nothing interesting or unique about the subclass features otherwise. It's just a collection of generic abilities collected from other sources and slammed together. Extra damage on one attack a round has been a standard feature since 2014. So have stepping after attacking or applying forced movement riders to attacks. The level 15 bonus action teleport is straight out of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes; the only difference is that the shadar'kai version from 2016 or whatever was usable 1/LR, while the swarmkeeper and MMM shadar-kai get proficiency/LR uses. God knows they'd have had to spend a little more time thinking about the subclass abilities if they could be turned off by fireball for a round. It's a kludge compensating for ultra-generic design.

I don't know why you think it would be turned off by fireball "for a round". Surely it would be "until you can find a new swarm", which could be...quite a while, depending on your environment?

Like surely if it was just turned off for a round you'd see people comparing about how ridiculous it is that you're in the middle of a dungeon and after your flock of birds gets fireballed another one just appears out of nowhere - living, breathing birds - within six seconds?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I don't know why you think it would be turned off by fireball "for a round". Surely it would be "until you can find a new swarm", which could be...quite a while, depending on your environment?

Like surely if it was just turned off for a round you'd see people comparing about how ridiculous it is that you're in the middle of a dungeon and after your flock of birds gets fireballed another one just appears out of nowhere - living, breathing birds - within six seconds?

Generally in past editions the way swarm-based class features have worked is that they're dispersed by wind/fire damage/etc rather than destroyed, and that they reincorporate without having to be replaced. When the fireball goes off the swarm scatters, and while some elements of it are killed (presumably. It's not usually stated) the rest survives as isolated individual creatures, no longer sharing a space or capable of the sort of unified, collective action that makes a swarm more than a collection of bugs or birds or whatever. They take a moment to reincorporate as a unified group, then can be directed once they've done so. It's also a kludge in its own way, of course. I just happen to think it's a better one than going 'yeah, here's a swarm-based subclass with no new abilities.'

[JackPhoenix]

the word Totem would imply the Spirit is tied to a physical object, definitionally

Not really. Totem refers to the symbolic value of the animal form, not any object.

[Blatant Beast]

Not really. Totem refers to the symbolic value of the animal form, not any object.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totem
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emblem

A quick perusal of the definitions will reveal a common theme of Totems and Emblems being connected with visual representations or objects.

That stated, of course one can lean into the loose, ephemeral notion of ‘bear spirit’…but what does cultural anthropology reveal about totems?: People like physical objects that connect them to the ephemeral, and such objects are not scarce.

Which in part, might be a good point against continual release of spectral abilities.

The Shepherd Druid, which should have major shaman vibes, undercuts the cultural/artistic considerations that would come into focus when dealing with a Totem Object, by removing physical considerations.

Designing your Shepherd Druids Totem Object could be a fun creative outlet for some people, but would require a Houserule.