Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Iduno]

But it is not called Enlarge/Reduce, which suggests Scourge was talking about 5e. Otherwise he would instead call it Reduce Person or something like that.

And even things with consistent names do not have consistent effects. Protection against good/evil was a spell in 3e that protected against good/evil. Protection from good/evil is a spell in 5e that protects against animals, golems, or other creature type of your choice because words don't have meanings.

[pikachu17]

Aberrations, Celestials, Elementals, fey, Fiends, and Undead. That is what 5e Protection from Good/Evil protects from, and it does it to all of them.
Where are you getting  "animals, golems, or other creature type of your choice"?

[scourge728]

Honestly, I just saw the idea on a youtube comment and thought it was funny

[pikachu17]

Well, actually just having a hawk familiar carry would be more efficient, faster, and all around better. You get to go 80 feet a round with a weight up to 75 pounds.

[Rolan7]

3.5's Protection From [X] spells and 5e's Protection from Good/Evil certainly are an interesting... comparison, though.

The 3.5 ones require you to choose the specific alignment they give +2 AC and saves against, which is alright.  But the arguably much greater role is that they block (AND suspend) *any* possession, charm, or compulsion effects.  Regardless of alignment, which always seemed strange to me when they made 4 different variations for the different alignments.

In 5e they seemed to make it more generic - it's one spell, and only names good and evil of course (bah, law/chaos are interesting too!).  But then you pick a specific creature type, and yeah, that list has very little to do with alignment at all.

Like Pikachu said: aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead.  Why can Protection from Good/Evil work against *elementals*??  Sorry, I just find that funny

Edit: Though I agree with them taking out the mechanical importance of alignment, and alignment detection etc.  The spell's named weird though, and it's barely related to the spells it's sorta named after!

[pikachu17]

Uh... You don't pick a creature type for that spell, it does all of them whether you want it to or not.
Instead of protecting from subjective good or evil, now the spell protects from creatures that are made of elemental good and evil.

[Persus13]

I disagree that its "barely related". The 5e version of the spell does basically the same thing as the 3.5 spell using 5e mechanics, so there's disadvantage instead of +2 to AC, and the immunity to charm and possession is still there, with frighten added in as well. And with the exception of elementals which tend to be mostly neutral or evil alignment, most of the creature types on the list tend to lean towards good or evil alignment (with the possible exception of fey).

And Protection from Extraplanar Creatures doesn't exactly have the same ring to it.

[pikachu17]

And Protection from Extraplanar Creatures doesn't exactly have the same ring to it.

Protection from Outsiders?

[Rolan7]

I disagree that its "barely related". The 5e version of the spell does basically the same thing as the 3.5 spell using 5e mechanics, so there's disadvantage instead of +2 to AC, and the immunity to charm and possession is still there, with frighten added in as well. And with the exception of elementals which tend to be mostly neutral or evil alignment, most of the creature types on the list tend to lean towards good or evil alignment (with the possible exception of fey).

And Protection from Extraplanar Creatures doesn't exactly have the same ring to it.

You have a good point, I was a bit confused because they folded compulsion magic (or at least Dominate Person) into a charm effect with special rules tacked on, for simplicity.  A lot of +2 bonuses became advantage, amidst a very complicated rebalancing that I definitely have enjoyed the end result of.

Personally I always avoided arcane magic in 3.5, and I have carried that twitch into 5e.  Not counting the absolute blast I had with my first 5e character, a dwarven arcane fighter.

And Protection from Extraplanar Creatures doesn't exactly have the same ring to it.

Protection from Outsiders?

I'd take either, but yeah.

You're right that the 5e version works against all those outsiders at once.  Which I think supports the direction I was going:  Why are these spells named after alignments, when both versions are primarily barriers against Outsiders?  Including neutral outsiders, even the alignment-named 3.5 versions.  As a longtime Druid main, I agree with your conclusion.

[Kagus]

Hey guys! Who wants some more ridiculous rules lawyering?

Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells.

So we've established that a shield is considered armor, and armor gives you big disadvantages if you're wearing a piece you're not proficient with. Right? So we don't wanna do that. That means no duct-taping a shield to a wizard or something and hoping he can flail around for a shield bash, right?

Well...

You use shields not just for protection but also for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:

• If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
• If you aren’t incapacitated, you can add your shield’s AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.
• If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half dam - age, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect.

"...when you are wielding a shield". So, technically, you don't have to be wearing it, you could just be holding it in your hand like a goddamn frisbee. And then slapping people with it as part of a shove action. But of course, you're still not proficient with it! Neither as a shield nor as an improvised weapon, so there's gotta be a downside to that, right?

Proficiency with a weapon allows you to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll for any attack you make with that weapon. If you make an attack roll using a weapon with which you lack proficiency, you do not add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll.

Okay, so that's bad, but not huge... Especially not at early levels. Still kinda bad though, especially if we want to make the most out of frisbee-bashing.

...but wait, the bonus shove from Shield Master is just a regular shove. How does shove work again?

The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use).

It's not an attack roll, you say? It's an ability check? Weapon proficiency only penalizes attack rolls? Hmm...


Introducing: Captain Faerûn, the Strength-loaded cunt carrying a goddamn frisbee who spends his first turn performing a Grapple attack action, which lets him use his wielded shield to perform a Bonus Action shove (and if he's a rogue or bard he of course gets Expertise: Athletics) and thereby thump his victim with the grappled+prone status combo, which inflicts disadvantage on the creature's attacks and doesn't let them stand up from the prone state.

Subsequent turns are either spent kicking the poor fuck as an Unarmed Attack (which everyone is naturally proficient in) for 1+Str damage (feet are not finesse weapons, so no sneak attack here, sadly), spamming Vicious Mockery, or doing something else dumb.

Really want to rub in the stupidity? Pick up some paladin/ranger spells via the Bard's magical secrets. Kicks count as a "weapon attack" and therefore trigger things like the various smites and Hunter's Mark. Brand someone with your foot.



Naturally, Captain Faerûn is hated by all. And with good reason. Fuckin' twat.

[IcyTea31]

I was going to suggest taking just 1 level in Rogue for Expertise and the rest in Monk to boost your unarmed damage, but:

You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield:

THEY KNOW.

[Kagus]

Monk can also kinda do the wombo combo anyways, it's just a bit weaker and comes online later. Way of the Open Hand gets the upgrade to Flurry of Blows that lets you attempt a knockdown on flurry strikes, and you can activate flurry "Immediately after taking the Attack action", which Grapple counts as. So you can grapple, then make two flurry attacks that have a chance to knock the opponent down.

That's not an opposed check though, the target just makes a Dex saving throw vs. 8 + your Wismod + your proficiency.

The fixed DC is better in some ways, worse in others, and while you're making damaging attacks while doing this you're also spending 1 ki point to pull it off. And you can only do it from level 3 Monk onwards.

You also kinda need to be strengthmonk, because starting a grapple is always Strength (Athletics)... Which means your defense kinda sucks, both AC and missile deflection.



What we really need is some sort of finesse weapon for the Rogue that they can use... Hmm... Bootknife?

[Cthulhu]

i think the wielding a shield line in monk makes it pretty clear wielding and wearing a shield are identical in the writers' eyes, unless you think 'monks can use a shield as long as they're not holding it like a frisbee' is the author's intent

the prosecution rests

[Kagus]

'monks can use a shield as long as they're not holding it like a frisbee' is the author's intent

Except they can't, because that would be wearing armor. We've already established that a shield is armor, so wearing a shield would be wearing armor. Therefore, the distinction in that passage between wearing armor and wielding a shield makes it clear that this is a case of holding shields like a goddamn frisbee.

[Persus13]

By that logic, you get no benefits from wearing a shield, because all you need to do is wield a shield to get the +2 bonus to AC.

If I were building Captain Faerun, I'd probably just have him be a Fighter with Tavern Brawler and Shield Master, and then either MC into Rogue or take the Prodigy feat for Expertise.