# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  I never realized how *strong* Archdruid was

## PhoenixPhyre

I'm working through an idea I had about making Wild Shape less of an "all druids" thing and more of a "moon druids" thing (replacing it with something on the vein of Channel Divinity with subclasses each getting their own spin on it, called Primal Call) and moving moon druids toward a set of scaling forms (rather than splat-book diving).

As part of that, I'm re-evaluating the base class features. Two stand out as needing to change--Beast Spells no longer makes sense in the core class. Fine, that's easy enough to change. I'll come up with something interesting that affects Primal Call use that's useful for everyone.

And then Archdruid, the druid capstone. First, it needs to change, since getting infinite "Primal Call" uses would be a bit much in some cases. Maybe. Second...holy crap. Not even counting the infinite well of HP trick for moon druids, you get _free_, _perfect_ (other than costly material components) subtle spell on all your spells. Can't counterspell a level 20 druid! Or even tell he's casting, no matter what form he's in.

Yeah, that's way stronger than it should be. I'm not sure how they even thought that was acceptable.

*Spoiler: Thoughts about a new capstone*
Show


I can probably leave the "infinite uses" thing in there, it doesn't really break much now that I think about it. All the various uses except one are intrinsically bounded (ie have duration or create persistent effects where you'll run out of combat time before you run out of uses most of the time) and don't stack. And that one use only gives a couple of spells, all of which are low level and non-flexible. And that brings the capstone down to more like what a lot of other classes get--expanded resource use.

----------


## Sigreid

They thought it was acceptable because a level 20 character has taken his first steps to God hood.  I'd rather everyone got something that cool than their ability get nerfed, but you do you.

Edit: hadn't noticed my stupid phone thought nerfed was supposed to be needed.

----------


## Damon_Tor

It's real hard for me to get too worked up over 20th level abilities being "too good". If anything, we should look at other classes and try to bring them up to the same level as the druid.

----------


## Pex

> They thought it was acceptable because a level 20 character has taken his first steps to God hood.  I'd rather everyone got something that cool than their ability get needed, but you do you.


Going with this let your new Moon Druid have his perfect spellcasting. Whatever you do with each new Druid subclass give them their own awesome thing based on the Primal Call you give them. Forget about Archdruid being a capstone for all Druids, and let it be a capstone for the subclass. If you need justification look at Paladin.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> They thought it was acceptable because a level 20 character has taken his first steps to God hood.


This is what I disagree with. *No* character, no matter the level, should be considered "on the road to God-hood". They're mortals. And that's all. But for some reason casters get special dispensation. Well, really just druids and wizards. That feature is _way_ out of line with everything else that everyone else gets. It's plainly bad design, going from a slow progression to suddenly ALL THE THINGS all at once. And steps all over the sorcerers' toes, getting their features, but better and free.

If nothing else, sudden jumps in power are bad design. The moon druid is a case in point, where they go to ludicrous speed real fast...and then drop back (in beast form at least) real fast. Features should build incrementally, with themes that are visible for a while. Suddenly getting "ok, you're completely not counterspellable and can break all the rules of magic...because....just because" is _stupid_ design. Not as bad as the wizard class, but... (not blue because true  :Small Yuk: )

----------


## animorte

> It's real hard for me to get too worked up over 20th level abilities being "too good". If anything, we should look at other classes and try to bring them up to the same level as the druid.


Absolutely this. Monk over there gets 4 Ki points upon rolling initiative _if they dont have any._

Then Sorcerer regains 4 sorcery points on a short rest. Gtfo ahere.




> This is what I disagree with. *No* character, no matter the level, should be considered "on the road to God-hood". They're mortals. And that's all.


I also agree with this though. Lets try and meet somewhere in the middle.

----------


## Sigreid

> This is what I disagree with. *No* character, no matter the level, should be considered "on the road to God-hood". They're mortals. And that's all. But for some reason casters get special dispensation. Well, really just druids and wizards. That feature is _way_ out of line with everything else that everyone else gets. It's plainly bad design, going from a slow progression to suddenly ALL THE THINGS all at once. And steps all over the sorcerers' toes, getting their features, but better and free.
> 
> If nothing else, sudden jumps in power are bad design. The moon druid is a case in point, where they go to ludicrous speed real fast...and then drop back (in beast form at least) real fast. Features should build incrementally, with themes that are visible for a while. Suddenly getting "ok, you're completely not counterspellable and can break all the rules of magic...because....just because" is _stupid_ design. Not as bad as the wizard class, but... (not blue because true )


High level D&D characters of all sorts were on their way to godhood since 1e. /shrug

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> High level D&D characters of all sorts were on their way to godhood since 1e. /shrug


This isn't 1e anymore. There's absolutely nothing in 5e, neither text, adventure, nor mechanics, that makes that claim. And that claim means that the whole system gets skewed. Seriously--an ancient red dragon is supposed to be a deadly (ie strong risk of someone outright dying without strategy, prep, and good luck) fight for a party of level 20s. And, on the absolute scale of things, _they're not that strong_.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> This isn't 1e anymore. There's absolutely nothing in 5e, neither text, adventure, nor mechanics, that makes that claim. And that claim means that the whole system gets skewed. Seriously--an ancient red dragon is supposed to be a deadly (ie strong risk of someone outright dying without strategy, prep, and good luck) fight for a party of level 20s. And, on the absolute scale of things, _they're not that strong_.


Lets be honest, MM Dragons are not, and have never been, a good measure of if something is dangerous or not. Because the calculations for CR and determining what is and isn't dangerous were not well refined when they were first made. I could easily see a standard level 20 party challening that one Tiamat aspect that's CR 30 and winning.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Lets be honest, MM Dragons are not, and have never been, a good measure of if something is dangerous or not. Because the calculations for CR and determining what is and isn't dangerous were not well refined when they were first made. I could easily see a standard level 20 party challening that one Tiamat aspect that's CR 30 and winning.


With no feats or multiclassing? And only random magic items by the DMG's guidance? I think not. Not at full strength. without severe favoritism and good luck. Especially as part of a full adventuring day.

----------


## Segev

I'd like to examine the OP's assertion that the capstone as-is is overpowered. Leaving aside the bottomless well of hp - which isn't QUITE so bad on a non-Moon Druid, since the low-CR monsters will likely have their hp chewed through by a full round's worth of attacks and will thus eat away at the druid's real hp and consume his actions shapeshifting back - the free subtle spell on all druid spells, while powerful...does it really do that much that isn't already at super-high power levels at level 20?

It's already hard to counterspell a level 20 caster. And counterspelling isn't a go-to tactic for most creatures in D&D, as far as I've seen. 

It's powerful, yes, but overpowered for level 20? I just don't see it. Not when I try to consider what else a level 20 character can do.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> With no feats or multiclassing? And only random magic items by the DMG's guidance? I think not. Not at full strength. without severe favoritism and good luck. Especially as part of a full adventuring day.


Sure, they've just _casually_ encountered Tiamat's aspect without any prior warning or preparations, that's _certainly_ a lot more realistic.

More likely, I would suggest the idea that you have a much different idea of what is "realistic" "expected" or "achievable" for a 20th level character than others do. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a pretty severe pet peeve of mine when such definitive statements are made based on the backings of personal opinions.

Is Archdruid OP? No, I don't think so. Is it out of line with other capstones? In many cases yes, but only because there are many that are comparatively not strong enough. Your philosophy on this is practically opposite to mine, other capstones should strive to be as powerful a reward as Archdruid is.

*And* regarding your assertion that 5e offers no representations of the player characters taking steps towards godhood, you're simply incorrect.



> An epic boon is a special power available only to 20th level characters. Characters at that level gain such boons only if you want them to and only when you feel its appropriate. Epic boons are best awarded after the characters complete a major quest, or accomplish something else particularly notable. A character might gain an epic boon after destroying an evil artifact, defeating an ancient dragon, or halting an incursion from the Outer Planes.
> 
> Epic boons can also be used as a form of advancement, a way to provide greater power to characters who have no more levels to gain. With this approach, consider awarding one epic boon to each character for every 30,000 XP he or she earns above 355,000 XP.
> 
> You determine which epic boon a character gains. Ideally, the boon you pick is something the character would put to use in future adventures. You can allow a player to select a boon for his or her character, subject to your approval.
> 
> Whatever boon a character ends up with, consider its place in your story and world.* Many of the boons are extraordinary and represent the gradual transformation of a character into something resembling a demigod.*


Though I suppose you have every right to simply not allow epic boons and pretend they don't exist. Personally I find that mindset to be boring, it makes more sense to keep campaigns grounded by ending them prior to this point in power scaling rather than trying to flatten the curve throughout and extended leveling process. I think the old term for it is E6?

----------


## sithlordnergal

> With no feats or multiclassing? And only random magic items by the DMG's guidance? I think not. Not at full strength. without severe favoritism and good luck. Especially as part of a full adventuring day.


I would expect them to be able to handle such an encounter at full strength, and with the DM trying to kill them. And it gets even easier the more optimized you get. I'd be more surprised if a standard level 20 party couldn't defeat a CR 30 at the end of a full adventuring day. Hence why I think Archdruid is perfectly fine as is. Though changing it up to work with your Wild Shape changes would be important. Heck, I'd say the other capstones need to be buffed. A capstone should make you excited and feel rewarded for sticking with the class all the way till the end. Most of them...don't. The only capstones I can think of that are exciting are the Artificer, Barbarian, Druid, and Paladin. the rest need buffs. I know we're not really talking about capstones as a whole, but here's what I'd personally do:

Artificer: Perfectly fine, doesn't need to be changed 

Barbarian: Perfectly fine, if a bit boring

Bard: Needs a major buff, maybe remove the limit on the number of Bardic Inspiration you have

Cleric: Needs a slight buff to offset the fact that Divine Intervention is entirely controlled by the DM. Maybe remove the limit on how many times you can use Channel Divinity? Or give them an extra 9th level spell based on their Domain?

Druid: Gold standard of capstones. Makes you excited to be a single class, unlike most other capstones.

Fighter: Technically their Capstone is their 3rd attack, but really I feel like their capstone is similar to the Paladin, in that its their final subclass feature. Too many to really definitively say how good it is, but the base 4 attacks are really good.

Monk: Trash, needs a major fix. Let them regain 2 to 3 Ki Points at the start of every turn if they have fewer than 5 Ki Points remaining at the start of their turn

Palaidn: Dependent on their oath, so unsure how good they all are

Ranger: The worst capstone of them all. this should be a basic level 1 ability with Favored Enemy. I don't even know what to replace it with cause the Ranger is just so...weird with its abilities. Maybe make its capstone Subclass dependant, like the Paladin.

Rogue: Mostly fine, just increase the number of uses per short rest. Maybe 3 per short rest?

Sorcerer: Trash, garbage, throw it out. I suggest unlimited Sorcery Points, change the wording of Flexible Casting so they can't make more spell slots than they're supposed to normally have. That fixes two birds with one stone. Doesn't matter if they can effectively refresh their all of their spell slots up to 5th level this way, its a feature, not a bug.

Warlock: So-so. Give them another spell slot to use, and maybe a bonus invocation, and it should be fine.

Wizard: Not very good. I suggest swapping Signature Spells and Spell Mastery. Being able to cast two spells an unlimited number of times is far more capstone-ish than casting two 3rd level spells once per short/long rest for free.

----------


## Segev

I would go so far as to suggest that the Barbarian capstone could do with buffing just a little: +4 bonus to strength, applied after all other modifiers to strength, and able to exceed caps. If the level 20 barbarian has a belt of storm giant strength, I have no problem with that particular character having a total strength of 33.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> It's real hard for me to get too worked up over 20th level abilities being "too good". If anything, we should look at other classes and try to bring them up to the same level as the druid.


 Concur. Bard's current level 20 feature is lackluster. 



> High level D&D characters of all sorts were on their way to godhood since 1e. /shrug





> This isn't 1e anymore. There's absolutely nothing in 5e, neither text, adventure, nor mechanics, that makes that claim.


OK, let's look at this rules text. 



> [B]In the first tier (levels 14)...snip...usually posing a danger to local farmsteads or villages.
> *In the second tier (levels 510)*...snip...facing dangers that threaten cities and kingdoms.
> *In the third tier (levels 1116)*...snip...confront threats to whole regions and continents. 
> [B]At the fourth tier (levels 1720), characters achieve the pinnacle of their class features, becoming heroic (or villainous) archetypes in their own right. *The fate of the world or even the fundamental order of the multiverse might hang in the balance during their adventures.*


 If they are not rising demigods, they are pretty damned close in terms of power level.   But no, they aren't deities.  



> Seriously--an ancient red dragon is supposed to be a deadly (ie strong risk of someone outright dying without strategy, prep, and good luck) fight for a party of level 20s. And, on the absolute scale of things, _they're not that strong_.


 And it is, when played intelligently, which means that dragon isn't a solo: it has minions, a lair, regional effects, and likely a cult full of allies, maybe a spouse (adult red dragon?) and so on.  :Small Smile:  Also, most Ancient dragons I run have the spell caster option (as your own old dragons tend to have).  
*Spoiler: Campaign 1 case in point*
Show


One of the reasons (I think) that we were able to get Gozh to back down, besides his own desire to survive,  was that he had cut himself off from his own allies due to his desire to replace the Shadow Lord. I remember a later tier 3 encounter with him - we were in his lair near to the lizardfolk cult that worshipped him -0 where he cast a spell on us (Plane shift?) and all 4 of us made the con save. If we had missed that save, or if two of us had, Gozh might have been able to handle the two who remained.  :Small Eek:

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> OK, let's look at this rules text. 
>  If they are not rising demigods, they are pretty damned close in terms of power level.   But no, they aren't deities.  [/SPOILER]


You can have lots of stuff riding on your actions even if you, individually, aren't a Power. It's like what Archimedes (allegedly) said: "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." High level PCs, whether by their own actions or the machinations of others, often find themselves at the critical points where even a small action can move worlds. That does *not* mean that individual high-level PCs have any fundamental part in the Greater Universal Order. Any passing deity _could_, plausibly, annihilate them without a second thought. The trick is getting to a point where they _won't_ do so. There's a fundamental difference-in-kind (not just in numbers but in nature) here, and that text says nothing to the contrary. And the text elsewhere about the nature of deities reinforces this.

If you assume that 20th level PCs are deity-class, settings fall apart entirely or require progressively increasing contortions to avoid the inevitable "how do we have room to maneuver" issues that crop up. And the system itself falls apart. If a level 20 party faces off against a lesser demigod (ie Tiamat), their success should (a) definitely not be assured, (b) require careful preparation, (c) and require a lot of luck and strategy. That doesn't scream "I'm an individual demigod-class individual" but rather "we can punch outside our weight class if we're really careful and set things up just right".

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> If you assume that 20th level PCs are deity-class,


 But I don't. Deities in 5e don't have hit points. But a party of 20's have synergy, frequently, which gives a team of them outsized impacts that an individual won't / can't have. Hence their ability to change a world or a bit of the 'verse they are in - which is normally a demigod or deity level undertaking.

----------


## Ionathus

I'm mostly amused that you think a party would feasibly hit level 20 without having already becoming cartoonishly unbalanced like twenty times already. 

Full casters get level 9 spells at level 17. If there's a wizard in the party, they've had access to Ol' Cliché Gamebreaker _Wish_ for the last three levels. Hell, every spell level above 4th introduces crazy new stuff that breaks the game in unpredictable ways. Spellcaster PCs get huge power and utility spikes as they become capable of negating or trivializing enemies or even whole encounters. In that context Archdruid feels fine. Amazing and cool, but not insane. 

The reason you're getting so many dismissive responses to this concern is that players barely, if ever, reach level 20. There's not a ton of statistics out there but I did find this Enworld survey that shows a large majority of players prefer the level 5-10 experience, and almost nobody (~2%) plays or prefers high-level play. 




> OK, let's look at this rules text. 
> If they are not rising demigods, they are pretty damned close in terms of power level. But no, they aren't deities.


Spot on. Tier 4 adventurers are facing world- or reality-ending threats, so they really need to be able to shine. If anything, the rest of their capstones should be brought up to the strength of Druid, Barbarian, or to a lesser extent Fighter. 

I mean, come on..._Foe Slayer?_ WotC, were you actively trolling Ranger fans or does someone on the 5e team loathe Drizzt or something? Comically bad. I'm still angry about this one.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I mean, come on..._Foe Slayer?_ WotC, were you actively trolling Ranger fans or does someone on the 5e team loathe Drizzt or something? Comically bad. I'm still angry about this one.


 Yeah: some of those capstones were real laughers, or  :Small Furious:  'ers.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Yeah: some of those capstones were real laughers, or  'ers.


Yeah. There are bad capstones _in both directions_.

Personally, I could be fine with the absolute power level of the druid capstone. But what makes me the most  :Small Furious:  is that it comes out of nowhere and represents a discontinuous power jump. The only part that signals "hey, you are the absolute, hands-down master of casting subtle spells" is the level 18 feature, and that's a (big) QoL one that only affects Wild Shape. Which a lot of the new subclasses use a lot less (since they're burning Wild Shape uses on other subclass features). So it's a huge jump _for Moon Druids_, a smaller jump for Dreams and Land druids, and a small jump for all the rest. And then the level 20 one comes in and says "yeah, I'm here now."

Oh, and it couples two very different things--you can Wild Shape as much as you want (great, that's a great capstone all by itself) AND "whatever shape you're in, you can ignore all components that don't have a price tag" into one feature. 

Discontinuities in power, especially ones not telegraphed/not extensions of early capabilities, are, in my opinion, a design smell. And Wild Shape (especially for Moon Druids) is already a sore spot there--it's _super_ effective...for like 3 levels early on. And then falls off a cliff other than being a big HP pool. One big reason I was looking at this was to try to regularize that, even if it means _overall more power_. Ideally (in my mind), a moon druid should be
* (slightly) worse than most druids at casting when in normal form
* but way better a physical combatant, nearly on par with a martial while Wild Shaped, at the cost of not being able to cast spells.
Effectively a gish toggle.

Instead of jumping wildly in effectiveness and mostly being just a regular druid beyond about level 8-10.

----------


## Keravath

> With no feats or multiclassing? And only random magic items by the DMG's guidance? I think not. Not at full strength. without severe favoritism and good luck. Especially as part of a full adventuring day.


Actually, with the tiamat stat block as written (Rise of Tiamat, appendix), it is trivial though it is entirely white room exercise and needs a bunch of spellcasters. Tiamat, as written, has no significant spellcasting abilities and has no ability to teleport or even Misty Step, and is not immune to the Exhausted condition. 

1) Block Tiamat in with Wall of Force or Force Cage (large Force Cage isn't total cover) - if you want the party to be unaffected by her attacks put up a wall of force between the Force Cage and the party. 

2) Cast Sickening Radiance using a 7th level spell slot inside the Force Cage.

3) Wait. 

If she won't fit in the 20' cube Force Cage (which is a DM call since Gargantuan starts at 20') then they will need to use some number of Wall of Force to hold her in place. 

Sickening Radiance requires a con save every round for 10 minutes - a fail save does some damage but increases exhaustion by one level. 6 levels of exhaustion and she is dead. 

She has advantage on saves vs magic ... with a +10 con ... DC from a high level caster is 19 without magic items so the save fails on a roll of 8 or less - which is 40%. With advantage the odds of her failing fall to 16% each round. She has 5 legendary saves so has to fail 11 times to be killed. 

One casting of sickening radiance causes 100 saving throws since it lasts 10 minutes. This would typically mean 16 failed saves on average ... she will be killed by 11 so the odds of a single casting of a level 7 sickening radiance killing Tiamat if she can be held in place are actually quite good and if one is not enough the party can probably cast another. 

--------------

A 5e dragon who can't teleport is a dragon waiting to die given the spells available. Unless the DM explicitly uses the an optional spell casting variant I don't think there are any monster manual dragons with spellcasting by default (Fizban's might have changed things - I don't have that book). 

The issue actually extends to quite a number of high level opponents - if you can lock them down and expose them to Sickening Radiance, most if not all will die. 

The Tarrasque is even easier since it can't jump or fly and can easily be corralled with some Wall of Force spells. It is also not immune to exhaustion. A few 9th level spellcasters can easily take down one of these - especially if there is someone else around to cast fly on them. 

--------------

Finally, I personally think the Druid level 20 ability is cool. It is really powerful especially in the context of a moon druid but Level 20 characters are supposed to be powerful. If anything I think the mediocre level 20 "capstones" should be upgraded since level 20 characters aren't likely to see that much play anyway unless the DM homebrews some sort of post 20 progression.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Actually, with the tiamat stat block as written (Rise of Tiamat, appendix), it is trivial though it is entirely white room exercise and needs a bunch of spellcasters. Tiamat, as written, has no significant spellcasting abilities and has no ability to teleport or even Misty Step, and is not immune to the Exhausted condition. 
> 
> 1) Block Tiamat in with Wall of Force or Force Cage (large Force Cage isn't total cover) - if you want the party to be unaffected by her attacks put up a wall of force between the Force Cage and the party. 
> 
> 2) Cast Sickening Radiance using a 7th level spell slot inside the Force Cage.
> 
> 3) Wait. 
> 
> If she won't fit in the 20' cube Force Cage (which is a DM call since Gargantuan starts at 20') then they will need to use some number of Wall of Force to hold her in place. 
> ...


I'd call "a full party of characters that was built specifically to counter this one monster with full assurance of prep time and proper initiative order" an unfair test of a system. You can always cheese things with enough meta knowledge and whiteroom prep. That has no bearing on the actual designed power level of a system.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> I'd call "a full party of characters that was built specifically to counter this one monster with full assurance of prep time and proper initiative order" an unfair test of a system. You can always cheese things with enough meta knowledge and whiteroom prep. That has no bearing on the actual designed power level of a system.


Indeed. How this would really go down:

*Wizard:* I cast Wall of Force (with normal level spell slot because I don't know monster stat blocks)

*Other Wizard (because why not?):* And I cast Sickening Radiance! (also with normal level spell slot because I don't know monster stat blocks)

*DM:* Ok, Tiamat seems to have no reaction to the sickening radiance, and the wall of force doesn't hold her in. She walks right through it as if it weren't even there!

*Fighter:* LMAO, nice work casters! Let's try to be a little productive! _*rushes forward and deals 30% of Tiamat's health in damage*_

----------


## Sigreid

> This isn't 1e anymore. There's absolutely nothing in 5e, neither text, adventure, nor mechanics, that makes that claim. And that claim means that the whole system gets skewed. Seriously--an ancient red dragon is supposed to be a deadly (ie strong risk of someone outright dying without strategy, prep, and good luck) fight for a party of level 20s. And, on the absolute scale of things, _they're not that strong_.


To me, the existence of epic boons says otherwise.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> To me, the existence of epic boons says otherwise.


Epic boons are
a) completely optional and not integrated in the rest of the product at all
b) mostly pretty trivial.

Even strongest ones (e.g. an extra 9th level spell per day) _quantitative_ changes, rather than _qualitative_ changes. And you need qualitative ones to be on the road to deity-hood. You need to have a _domain_ to be a deity. And that's not even slightly on the list.

A level 20 character, once killed, is dead. They can be resurrected, but so can a level 1. No difference there. They don't depend on belief, they don't have any kind of cosmologically-relevant direct power, they can't grant other people spells.

Level 20 characters aren't on the road to godhood--there's no divine spark whatsoever. Or indication of one.

----------


## Segev

> Indeed. How this would really go down:
> 
> *Wizard:* I cast Wall of Force (with normal level spell slot because I don't know monster stat blocks)
> 
> *Other Wizard (because why not?):* And I cast Sickening Radiance! (also with normal level spell slot because I don't know monster stat blocks)
> 
> *DM:* Ok, Tiamat seems to have no reaction to the sickening radiance, and the wall of force doesn't hold her in. She walks right through it as if it weren't even there!
> 
> *Fighter:* LMAO, nice work casters! Let's try to be a little productive! _*rushes forward and deals 30% of Tiamat's health in damage*_


Correct me if I am missing something, but it sounds to me like you're saying it would go: "I, the DM, decree that the spells don't work as written for no reason other than I don't like that they do work that way, and Mr. Fighter is welcome to mock the casters for sbeing ueless by DM fiat."

If that is not what you're suggesting a "real" game would and should look like, please explain what you did mean.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Correct me if I am missing something, but it sounds to me like you're saying it would go: "I, the DM, decree that the spells don't work as written for no reason other than I don't like that they do work that way, and Mr. Fighter is welcome to mock the casters for sbeing ueless by DM fiat."
> 
> If that is not what you're suggesting a "real" game would and should look like, please explain what you did mean.


In the example given, the wizards are upcasting their spells. Wall of Force and Sickening Radiance have no benefit to upcasting them natively, so the poster is assuming that the players are aware that Tiamat has Limited Magic Immunity and totally ignores spells of 6th level or lower unless she wants to be affected by them.

So I'd imagine that in reality the wizards fire off their super duper neato spell combo of doom and it would not impact her. And then maybe they'd figure out they have to try something stronger (I don't know, I don't really play meta-gamey show-stopper characters). But if we're assuming perfect monster stat block knowledge, I'll assume all attacks hit and maybe a few crits too with Action Surge  :Small Cool: .

*EDIT:* I see Forcecage was also mentioned, which is level 7 and would bypass her Immunity. We can say it's "up to the DM" as to whether it might work, but... Tiamat is clearly depicted as WAY bigger than something that can fit entirely in a 20ft cube. Maybe one of her heads and some part of the neck, but not her entire body, let alone tail, let alone wingspan, other heads, etc. So best of luck. If the DM gives you her stat block and says she will contort herself to fit neatly in a 20ft cube, then that's wonderful and you've beat the game. But if not, two of her breath weapon legendary actions will probably kill a wizard before she even gets to her turn.

----------


## Catullus64

The feature is fine, for a couple of reasons. 

First, I don't think it's a given that it makes spells impossible to block with _Counterspell. Counterspell_ says that you can cast it when you "see a creature within range casting a spell." Is it impossible to tell that a creature is casting a spell, just because the casting has no components? That's a reasonable inference, but an inference all the same; a DM can just not run it that way. 

And even if it did make the Druid's (non-costed material) spells functionally un-counterable... so? How many monsters have _Counterspell_ in their statblock? I can think of, like, four or five. It's only a serious game-breaker if your DM loves sticking _Counterspell_-wielding PC-class casters in every other encounter. If that is the case, the DM is the one out of line with the base expectations of the game, not the class feature.

As for the unlimited HP thing, keep in mind that for non-Moon Druids, it costs your action to assume a new form, an action which could be used for much more valuable things than gaining a CR 1 Beast's worth of extra HP.

It's very strong, but to claim that it somehow breaks the power curve or makes Druids any more game-breaking than they would be otherwise seems hyperbolic to me.

----------


## Unoriginal

> In the example given, the wizards are upcasting their spells. Wall of Force and Sickening Radiance have no benefit to upcasting them natively, so the poster is assuming that the players are aware that Tiamat has Limited Magic Immunity and totally ignores spells of 6th level or lower unless she wants to be affected by them.
> 
> So I'd imagine that in reality the wizards fire off their super duper neato spell combo of doom and it would not impact her. And then maybe they'd figure out they have to try something stronger (I don't know, I don't really play meta-gamey show-stopper characters). But if we're assuming perfect monster stat block knowledge, I'll assume all attacks hit and maybe a few crits too with Action Surge .


Personally, I always read it as her being immune to all spells of lvl 6th or lower, even if upcasted. 

But I know many consider that it's the used spell slot's level that count, rather than the spell's level.

----------


## ProsecutorGodot

> Personally, I always read it as her being immune to all spells of lvl 6th or lower, even if upcasted. 
> 
> But I know many consider that it's the used spell slot's level that count, rather than the spell's level.


They would consider it so because it's rather specific in the rules.



> When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spells level or higher, effectively "filling" a slot with the spell. You can think of a spell slot as a groove of a certain size  small for a 1st-level slot, larger for a spell of higher level. A 1st-level spell fits into a slot of any size, but a 9th-level spell fits only in a 9th-level slot.
> 
> For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into


If we adjust the example, casting magic missile using a 6th level slot makes it 6th level. The text also suggests that higher level slots hold larger and larger amounts of magic, and the final sentence says that a lower level spell will expand to fit a slot, effectively using just as much magical force as a 6th level spell

----------


## stoutstien

Unpopular opinion but capstones aren't that great of a design principle. Id rather see a higher focus on keystone features that are available lv 9-13.

----------


## Segev

> In the example given, the wizards are upcasting their spells. Wall of Force and Sickening Radiance have no benefit to upcasting them natively, so the poster is assuming that the players are aware that Tiamat has Limited Magic Immunity and totally ignores spells of 6th level or lower unless she wants to be affected by them.
> 
> So I'd imagine that in reality the wizards fire off their super duper neato spell combo of doom and it would not impact her. And then maybe they'd figure out they have to try something stronger (I don't know, I don't really play meta-gamey show-stopper characters). But if we're assuming perfect monster stat block knowledge, I'll assume all attacks hit and maybe a few crits too with Action Surge .
> 
> *EDIT:* I see Forcecage was also mentioned, which is level 7 and would bypass her Immunity. We can say it's "up to the DM" as to whether it might work, but... Tiamat is clearly depicted as WAY bigger than something that can fit entirely in a 20ft cube. Maybe one of her heads and some part of the neck, but not her entire body, let alone tail, let alone wingspan, other heads, etc. So best of luck. If the DM gives you her stat block and says she will contort herself to fit neatly in a 20ft cube, then that's wonderful and you've beat the game. But if not, two of her breath weapon legendary actions will probably kill a wizard before she even gets to her turn.


Ah. Thanks; it helps to know that she has that Limited Spell Immunity thing. (I have never played nor read the module, so know only what this thread has said about her stat block.) I do, however, think the RAW actually support upcasting making spells penetrate that. ProsecutorGodot's post, quoted here, covers why:




> They would consider it so because it's rather specific in the rules.
> 
> If we adjust the example, casting magic missile using a 6th level slot makes it 6th level. The text also suggests that higher level slots hold larger and larger amounts of magic, and the final sentence says that a lower level spell will expand to fit a slot, effectively using just as much magical force as a 6th level spell





> The feature is fine, for a couple of reasons. 
> 
> First, I don't think it's a given that it makes spells impossible to block with _Counterspell. Counterspell_ says that you can cast it when you "see a creature within range casting a spell." Is it impossible to tell that a creature is casting a spell, just because the casting has no components? That's a reasonable inference, but an inference all the same; a DM can just not run it that way.


This does undermine Subtle Spell a bit. If you can "see" a creature casting a spell without verbal or somatic components, does that mean the bandits all know that Sally the Sorceress just cast _charm person_ on their boss, even though she used Subtle Spell to hide her casting? On the other hand, is it too late to cast _counterspell_ on a _fireball_ when the bead streaks out from the ferret that's been sitting on the fighter's shoulder this whole time?




> And even if it did make the Druid's (non-costed material) spells functionally un-counterable... so? How many monsters have _Counterspell_ in their statblock? I can think of, like, four or five. It's only a serious game-breaker if your DM loves sticking _Counterspell_-wielding PC-class casters in every other encounter. If that is the case, the DM is the one out of line with the base expectations of the game, not the class feature.


This, I agree with.




> As for the unlimited HP thing, keep in mind that for non-Moon Druids, it costs your action to assume a new form, an action which could be used for much more valuable things than gaining a CR 1 Beast's worth of extra HP.


Also an excellent point. Moon Druids are the only ones who get enough hp out of it - let alone for a low enough action cost to still act meaningfully each round - that this becomes a significant hp buffer. CR 10 critters can have a significant amount of hp even at level 20, too. But if all you can do to threaten a level 20 character is make them fear losing all their hp, you're missing a lot of tricks. Remember that combat should not generally be a race-to-0-hp; it should have a reason for happening that involves the PCs and NPCs both having goals which are mutually incompatible enough that they are willing to fight over them, and achieving those goals is how the side measures "victory." If the moon druid is left alive but the enemies get away with the MacGuffin, or kill the VIP, or delayed him long enough that the ritual was completed before he could stop it, or whatever it is the moon druid was fighting for is no longer possible to achieve, the moon druid still loses. In shorter-term, in-combat stakes, the moon druid has a lot of options for escaping grapples and hazards and the like, but hitting him with debuffs and trapping him in _web_s or other, similar things are still options. They still hinder him.




> It's very strong, but to claim that it somehow breaks the power curve or makes Druids any more game-breaking than they would be otherwise seems hyperbolic to me.


Agreed.

----------


## Segev

> Unpopular opinion but capstones aren't that great of a design principle. Id rather see a higher focus on keystone features that are available lv 9-13.


While capstones are rarely reached, I don't see how lacking them improves the game. Why have a maximum level at all if there is no capstone? There is always a last level in every game. Even ones that don't reach 20, the game ends on some level. If you believe that there should be no keystone ability - capstone or otherwise - at the level the game ends on, what was the point of getting to that level, rather than stopping earlier?

Capstones give reasons to do things like stay in a class all the way to the top, even if one level in the middle somewhere might not be as exciting as a one-level dip.

Sure, in a "no multiclassing" game, capstones may not be as much of an incentive, but they still feel good. Capstones are just that last level feature. If you want meaningful features all the way up, you inherently want a capstone, because you want a meaningful feature on the last level.

----------


## stoutstien

> While capstones are rarely reached, I don't see how lacking them improves the game. Why have a maximum level at all if there is no capstone? There is always a last level in every game. Even ones that don't reach 20, the game ends on some level. If you believe that there should be no keystone ability - capstone or otherwise - at the level the game ends on, what was the point of getting to that level, rather than stopping earlier?
> 
> Capstones give reasons to do things like stay in a class all the way to the top, even if one level in the middle somewhere might not be as exciting as a one-level dip.
> 
> Sure, in a "no multiclassing" game, capstones may not be as much of an incentive, but they still feel good. Capstones are just that last level feature. If you want meaningful features all the way up, you inherently want a capstone, because you want a meaningful feature on the last level.


IMO if the only thing keeping someone from leaving a class for greener pastures is the capstone then the class is already a failure. Cap stones can still exist but their weight shouldn't be higher than a lower level feature just by nature of being a higher level feature. 

Every level should be alluring and reinforcing the theme or feeling it is designed to do. Trying to hang a carrot at the end of the progression doesn't make sense if the goal is to keep players engaged.

----------


## Segev

> IMO if the only thing keeping someone from leaving a class for greener pastures is the capstone then the class is already a failure. Cap stones can still exist but their weight shouldn't be higher than a lower level feature just by nature of being a higher level feature. 
> 
> Every level should be alluring and reinforcing the theme or feeling it is designed to do. Trying to hang a carrot at the end of the progression doesn't make sense if the goal is to keep players engaged.


I agree with the first sentence of the last paragraph, but not with the rest of it. The higher-level features should, indeed, reinforce the theme or feeling of the class, but they should also be increasingly more powerful. Possibly only in conjunction with what came at lower levels - that's a key part of good class design, ensuring it builds on itself - but they SHOULD be better and better as they go up. Not only to encourage continuing to stay in the class (and, no, I don't have any problem with people multiclassing and don't think this increasingly-good class feature design space should necessarily be so good that multiclassing is always unattractive), but just to always make leveling up exciting. "Dead levels" are boring and even disappointing. 

The last level of a class should have something that excites you to get to it.

----------


## stoutstien

> I agree with the first sentence of the last paragraph, but not with the rest of it. The higher-level features should, indeed, reinforce the theme or feeling of the class, but they should also be increasingly more powerful. Possibly only in conjunction with what came at lower levels - that's a key part of good class design, ensuring it builds on itself - but they SHOULD be better and better as they go up. Not only to encourage continuing to stay in the class (and, no, I don't have any problem with people multiclassing and don't think this increasingly-good class feature design space should necessarily be so good that multiclassing is always unattractive), but just to always make leveling up exciting. "Dead levels" are boring and even disappointing. 
> 
> The last level of a class should have something that excites you to get to it.


Excites doesn't need to mean powerful in the mechanical sense. I know a lot of players enjoy seeing bigger numbers and such but I'm the end those rarely are defining to a theme (unless the theme IS damage but they are really bad at that as well). I know I'm odd that I'm more excited about stuff like magical tinkering or the forge domain's CD than adding more some numbers to attacks but somewhere in the middle is that sweet spot.

Powerful in a vacuum is also not the issue. It's power that is stacking on power that is stacking on power. Mostly because power ≠ power. Ppl say the barbarian capstone is good but honestly it's chump change compared to the spell mastery feature that is 2 levels lower. Heck id say arcane recovery is stronger. The barbarian would be better served with filling thst void after lv 11 with actual features rather than 'well the cap stone is nice '. Will it fix the spell casting wobble in the upper tiers? No. But it would at least would attempt to address it.

Some classes just can't handle capstones that suddenly add exponential values(Unless the value is purposely avoiding the stacking issue).

----------


## Segev

> Excites doesn't need to mean powerful in the mechanical sense. I know a lot of players enjoy seeing bigger numbers and such but I'm the end those rarely are defining to a theme (unless the theme IS damage but they are really bad at that as well). I know I'm odd that I'm more excited about stuff like magical tinkering or the forge domain's CD than adding more some numbers to attacks but somewhere in the middle is that sweet spot.
> 
> Powerful in a vacuum is also not the issue. It's power that is stacking on power that is stacking on power. Mostly because power ≠ power. Ppl say the barbarian capstone is good but honestly it's chump change compared to the spell mastery feature that is 2 levels lower. Heck id say arcane recovery is stronger. The barbarian would be better served with filling thst void after lv 11 with actual features rather than 'well the cap stone is nice '. Will it fix the spell casting wobble in the upper tiers? No. But it would at least would attempt to address it.
> 
> Some classes just can't handle capstones that suddenly add exponential values(Unless the value is purposely avoiding the stacking issue).


Note that we're discussing the Archdruid capstone, which isn't "bigger numbers."

----------


## stoutstien

> Note that we're discussing the Archdruid capstone, which isn't "bigger numbers."


True. Archdruid is powerful and it's really one subclass that makes it worth looking at twice. The built in subtle spell is ok IMO because druids in general spend more time concentrating than casting. 
*Note in this case i don't think the capstone is more powerful than lower level features. Over half of the lv 14 subclass options are better imo*

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Ah. Thanks; it helps to know that she has that Limited Spell Immunity thing. (I have never played nor read the module, so know only what this thread has said about her stat block.) I do, however, think the RAW actually support upcasting making spells penetrate that.


I checked before I posted and Crawford clarified on Sage Advice that it does count as a higher level spell and would penetrate the Immunity.

My issue isn't with upcasting to penetrate it in general. It's the example making assumptions that guarantee a win:

1. Sickening Radiance and Wall of Force have a 120ft range, Forcecage is at 100ft. Two of her breath weapons are at 120ft range, the other three are at 90ft. So unless the caster is able to engage Tiamat at the very edges of the spell range and then back up, they are likely to die or lose Concentration. Because even if the DM rules that the itty bitty Forcecage can hold her, it HAS TO BE the Cage version, because the Solid Box version is only 10ft on a side. With the cage version, Tiamat can get two breath weapons off as Legendary Actions. The 120ft attacks are Acid Breath for 67 acid damage, and Lightning Breath for 88 lightning damage. Both are DC 27 Dex save for half. That's going to kill most wizards, even assuming a 16 Constitution. And that's before she takes her turn. Even if the wizard saves on both Dex saves, those are two concentration checks, the first at 16, and the second at 22. You'll need proficiency in Con saves to have a chance at making that second one. If it's Wall of Force, that's popped and Tiamat flies 120ft and wrecks you. If it's Sickening Radiance, threat over until the uber casters get to try again next turn, if they survive.

2. The assumption that they'll instinctively know to upcast the spells to overcome her immunity. If the DM gives them an opportunity to find this information out, knowing that the party has two casters with a combination of Wall of Force and Sickening Radiance, or one caster with Forcecage and Sickening Radiance, then it's essentially a riddle encounter. Congratulations, you found out that when you cast your sick combo, you need to use your second 7th level slot to cast Sickening Radiance. You solved the problem, encounter over. But if not, then very likely the casters instead WASTE their first turn on spells that don't do anything.

3. While we can imagine a wizard with Advantage on Concentration checks and Proficiency in Con saves to maintain those spells (still assumptions), even a wizard at level 20 with Prof in Wisdom saves is going to have a tough time beating her Frightful Presence, Wisdom save of 26. Thankfully it's an Action for her to use it, but the range is 240ft, twice that of the killer spell combo. Frightened isn't a big deal except the caster can't get closer to cast those particular spells.

4. If it's one caster trying to cast Forcecage on one turn, and then Sickening Radiance on the other, that's both level 7 spell slots (again, assuming they even know to cast Sickening Radiance at that level). If the caster loses Concentration to that Lightning Breath, then Forcecage is still up but they have to use the 8th level slot to recast Sickening Radiance, and then a 9th level slot. Better to use that 9th level slot on something else, but point is you have 4 slots that can directly impact Tiamat, and the assumption that your first two are going to go off without a hitch and win the day is generous. Tiamat can auto save 5 times with Legendary Resistance and she gets two Breath Weapon attacks every round outside of her turn. So hopefully the terrain lets the caster get away while they're concentrating, or there aren't minions hemming them in, because Tiamat has a +10 bonus to Con saves vs DC 19-21, and that's before she has to use Legendary Resistance, and the caster has ~145hp and probably can't tank breath weapon attacks every other turn. 

5. There's no minions or lackeys around to run interference and counter spells or break concentration. Tiamat is a literal dragon god with 26 Intelligence and Wisdom, and 28 Charisma, but apparently doesn't know well enough to have protection from magic that she's vulnerable to.

6. The assumption that either Wall of Force or Forcecage would hem Tiamat in. Look at any art of Tiamat, or even just the art of the referenced statblock (Rise of Tiamat). She is ENORMOUS. Forcecage is not going to be big enough for her. And Wall of Force's ten 10x10 panels I don't think will do it either, especially since they have to be all be touching. I would need to spend some time imagining how to construct it, but my instinct is that Wall of Force would fall short of actually holding her in place. If a DM rules that Gargantuan creatures are all just 20ft tall/wide/long/etc., then yes, that's a very nice ruling for you.

----------


## Ionathus

*@PhoenixPhyre: 
*This whole concern of yours is only ever a problem in internet theorycrafting. High-level play in 5e isn't anywhere close to the finely tuned and carefully balanced system you're making it out to be. *You will not make it to level 20 with your game balance intact*, so complaining about Moon Druids getting an "unbalanced" feature at that stage feels like missing the forest for the trees if you ask me. 

I'm currently struggling to challenge my *level 13* players in 5e. Designing interesting and difficult encounters is one of my favorite parts of the game, so I've gotten pretty good at it - but they blow it out of the water every time. Once you get past 10 or so, there are just simply so many ways that a PC can overpower, trivialize, or negate a problem. I don't see why you're so hung up on this specific one. 

*Spoiler: Long-winded analogy about Age of Empires & other RTS games*
Show

I really like Age of Empires 2. One thing that's interesting about a game of AoE2 (and other RTS games I believe, but this is the only one I've ever played) is that you start out *so* small as to be comical. 3 villagers and a single researchable technology, a handful of buildings, a wimpy scout. There's not much you can do with those resources, so you have to tightly control them and manage them effectively. Each civilization gets bonuses, and getting a big bonus at this early stage is a *huge* power spike because your options and resources are so limited early on. If your civilization bonus gave you +500 food in the Dark Age, it would be so powerful that no other civilization would be worth picking. Because 500 is likely to be more than your entire bank of resources.

But as the game goes on, you expand your base and increase your options. You have access to a wide swath of army units and upgrades. And your resource-gathering has improved by a ton. Suddenly it's not unusual to be pulling in hundreds or even thousands of Food per minute, because you have 25x the villagers you had at the start. So if your civilization bonus gave you 500 food at *this* stage of the game - or even 5000 food - it would barely have an effect on what you're doing. 

You are complaining about the equivalent of Druids receiving 500 food in the Imperial Age, 45 minutes into the game, while everyone is running around with bombard cannons and half the map is covered with farms and 500 food means nothing. You mentioned the Moon Druid spike in early levels, and that's a much more valuable conversation to have if you ask me -- that's a situation where one "civilization" is actually getting disproportionate resources while things are still small-potatoes enough for that to matter.


Look at me, using such competition-heavy language to make a point about PC optimization, even though this is supposed to be a cooperative game! I wish we didn't talk about different builds as if they were directly competing with their team members. As if somebody getting to shine in their niche somehow takes away from the fun everyone else has at the table. Who gives a crap if the lvl20 Druid can suddenly do way cooler tricks with their wild shape? Certainly not the Wizard, they're busy telling the laws of reality to sit down and shut up. Certainly not the Fighter, they're busy making 8 attacks in a turn with their flaming raging poisoning sword of doom. Probably the Ranger, because they "get" to add +4 to one attack per turn, but that's a problem with the Ranger's capstone, not the Druid's. 

Nobody makes it to 20 anyway. This is a non-issue. But if they *do*, then they ought to get something huge. Gamebreaking, even. Because if you arrive at level 20 in 5e without already having your game broken dozens of times, you have more balancing skills than every other DM in the world combined. 




> But if all you can do to threaten a level 20 character is make them fear losing all their hp, you're missing a lot of tricks. Remember that combat should not generally be a race-to-0-hp; it should have a reason for happening that involves the PCs and NPCs both having goals which are mutually incompatible enough that they are willing to fight over them, and achieving those goals is how the side measures "victory." If the moon druid is left alive but the enemies get away with the MacGuffin, or kill the VIP, or delayed him long enough that the ritual was completed before he could stop it, or whatever it is the moon druid was fighting for is no longer possible to achieve, the moon druid still loses. In shorter-term, in-combat stakes, the moon druid has a lot of options for escaping grapples and hazards and the like, but hitting him with debuffs and trapping him in _web_s or other, similar things are still options. They still hinder him.


All excellent points. The Archdruid feature is very powerful and flashy but it is far from an instant win button. Really, its greatest value is in making the Druid feel *cool*. As well it should.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> *@PhoenixPhyre: 
> *This whole concern of yours is only ever a problem in internet theorycrafting. High-level play in 5e isn't anywhere close to the finely tuned and carefully balanced system you're making it out to be. *You will not make it to level 20 with your game balance intact*, so complaining about Moon Druids getting an "unbalanced" feature at that stage feels like missing the forest for the trees if you ask me. 
> 
> I'm currently struggling to challenge my *level 13* players in 5e. Designing interesting and difficult encounters is one of my favorite parts of the game, so I've gotten pretty good at it - but they blow it out of the water every time. Once you get past 10 or so, there are just simply so many ways that a PC can overpower, trivialize, or negate a problem. I don't see why you're so hung up on this specific one.


I'm not hung up on it. I consider it a design smell. I consider it out of balance both with where I feel the game was designed to be AND where I feel the game _should_ be. And with the rest of the druid class.

But most of all, I was _surprised_ by it. Because after 9 years playing (mostly DM'ing) 5e D&D including multiple 1-20 campaigns[1], I'd never really noticed it. Which does say it can't be _too_ strong of a design smell. I'd not rank it even in the top 10 "stupid decisions by WotC about 5e D&D" list. It's a design smell none-the-less.

[1] which, honestly, weren't that imbalanced. Sure, characters were crazy strong in some cases. But mostly that was due to my fondness for giving really strong items. And any lack of challenge came down to my absolute inability (ask KorvinStarmast) to roll decent numbers except (occasionally) on saving throws. Electronically or on physical devices, my dice hate me and love my players. Then again, I don't take challenge as the dominant "mode of fun", so it all evens out. Narrative exploration, setting exploration, character twists--those are way more important to me than "I almost but not quite killed everyone". I don't actually try to balance encounters anymore. I just come up with things that fit the area they are and are, to a rough smell test, sorta ok. And most importantly are easy to run.

----------


## Ionathus

> I'm not hung up on it. I consider it a design smell. I consider it out of balance both with where I feel the game was designed to be AND where I feel the game _should_ be. And with the rest of the druid class.
> 
> But most of all, I was _surprised_ by it. Because after 9 years playing (mostly DM'ing) 5e D&D including multiple 1-20 campaigns[1], I'd never really noticed it. Which does say it can't be _too_ strong of a design smell. I'd not rank it even in the top 10 "stupid decisions by WotC about 5e D&D" list. It's a design smell none-the-less.
> 
> [1] which, honestly, weren't that imbalanced. Sure, characters were crazy strong in some cases. But mostly that was due to my fondness for giving really strong items. And any lack of challenge came down to my absolute inability (ask KorvinStarmast) to roll decent numbers except (occasionally) on saving throws. Electronically or on physical devices, my dice hate me and love my players. Then again, I don't take challenge as the dominant "mode of fun", so it all evens out. Narrative exploration, setting exploration, character twists--those are way more important to me than "I almost but not quite killed everyone". I don't actually try to balance encounters anymore. I just come up with things that fit the area they are and are, to a rough smell test, sorta ok. And most importantly are easy to run.


Thanks for the response - it sounds like you and I are a lot more aligned on what's interesting to us as DMs than I thought! I strongly believe that perfect game balance isn't as important to player fun as D&D forums make it out to be, and I think I made some assumptions from your initial post. Hopefully my responses didn't feel too aggressive. 

Can I ask: what's it like running a Tier 4 campaign? Any pointers?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Thanks for the response - it sounds like you and I are a lot more aligned on what's interesting to us as DMs than I thought! I strongly believe that perfect game balance isn't as important to player fun as D&D forums make it out to be, and I think I made some assumptions from your initial post. Hopefully my responses didn't feel too aggressive. 
> 
> Can I ask: what's it like running a Tier 4 campaign? Any pointers?


My DM'ing style is...idiosyncratic at best. So I may not be the most help. Generally for me, T4 is kinda a victory lap. Cleaning up all the messes left behind by the (presumed, by the fact they got to T4) victory over the major villains (or resolution of the major situation) in late T3. I'm not out to _challenge_ them, per se, but I do have more freedom to do big spectacle events (not necessarily combats) and roll in major players, as well as have long-lasting effects on the world. T4 (in a long-running/indefinite-duration game[1]) is where I'm doing most of my thinking about _legacy_--what will be the major changes to the world[2] as a result of this campaign? How can we wrap up the character development/stories? Are there dominos I want to set up for future campaigns?

And in my preferred power levels, most of the change is about who they know (ie the relationships they've built up) rather than personal power. Sure, they can slaughter their way through things. But at this stage, that's not enough. Meaningful lasting change and victory requires building coalitions to put them in the right place at the right time. Most of those have been built up (or not) throughout the entire campaign.

Examples of arcs from T4 adventures:
* (late T3 early T4) Party dives into the Plane of Ice[3] to confront a corrupted titan/planar ruler who is trying to turn her sons into a godlike (but corrupted) entity that would be bad news. This is, in large part, a grudge match. She's been screwing with the party the entire campaign, from a distance because they have something she wants. They have to gather allies (because she's protected by an army in a fortress) and make deals with some of her allies (to betray her and open the doors).
* (non-canon, T4) Party has had some downtime after dealing with a cosmic-level artifact. Demigod (that they've dealt with before) shows up and asks for their help--a demon prince, hopped up on Bad Juju, has invaded the Celestial City at the center of the universe[4] and is trying to destroy the core of the Great Mechanism. Simultaneously, his allies (the sources of the Bad Juju) are tearing a hole in the borders of reality. This was more of a rofl-stomp beat-em-up, but finished the arc of one character, revealing that (contrary to expectations), he _wasn't_ crazy when he said that he was a Far Realms god descended to warn the world about dangers from Beyond. He wasn't exactly right either, but not entirely wrong.
* (T4) Party finished T3 by dealing with an ancient dragon at a conference of dragons. Three major small arcs in T4:
** Reforging a pact the settings' equivalent of the shadar kai had made with Death, saving that race. This mostly involved politics, but also killing some real bad guys. This was central to one character (who was a warlock of Death)'s arc.
** Defending the wedding of one of the character's son from an angry divine avatar. Which, for various divine machination reasons, ended up getting broadcast to the entire world (literally) and ended with the dethroning of that god.
** Diving into the Astral[4] to smash down the doors of some wanna-be godlings and break the core of their power source, which was Bad Juju incarnate. This was core to a different characters' arc.
** One character getting it on (and getting pregnant) by the eldest living dragon. That hookup happened at the aforementioned wedding.

[1] A lot of my campaigns were designed to be short-lived due to constraints. I was running an after-school club, so I was restricted to ~10 sessions. Those didn't go 1-20, but did leave their mark on the setting.
[2] It's a persistent world--every campaign leaves changes and the PCs stay behind as NPCs.
[3] Kinda a sub-plane of the elemental plane of water, but only kinda. Very non-standard cosmology.
[4] Non-standard cosmology. *Very* non-standard.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Unpopular opinion but capstones aren't that great of a design principle. Id rather see a higher focus on keystone features that are available lv 9-13.


 Yes, some classes have very good ones in that range and others do not. Monks being immune to disease and poison after level 10 has played out nicely in two different campaigns that I run. 



> Every level should be alluring and reinforcing the theme or feeling it is designed to do. Trying to hang a carrot at the end of the progression doesn't make sense if the goal is to keep players engaged.


 At least partly agree.  One of the reasons I MC'd at level 20 with my lore bard was that the capstone was massively underwhelming. 



> 1. Sickening Radiance and Wall of Force have a 120ft range, Forcecage is at 100ft. Two of her breath weapons are at 120ft range, the other three are at 90ft. {snip}


 Your quote on Frightful Presence is a good one, but Heroe's feast and a few other spells/features make one immune to fear.  :Small Smile:  




> Nobody makes it to 20 anyway.


 Ahem, yes they do.  :Small Smile:  The party my bard was part of in Phoenix's game got to 20.  And yes, we found quite a bit of wonky stuff along the way.  



> All excellent points. The Archdruid feature is very powerful and flashy but it is far from an instant win button. Really, its greatest value is in making the Druid feel *cool*. As well it should.


 Tend to agree.

----------


## stoutstien

> At least partly agree.  One of the reasons I MC'd at level 20 with my lore bard was that the capstone was massively underwhelming.


Definitely some crapstones that need to be addressed. For bards id add in another subclass feature at 20.

----------


## Dr.Samurai

> Your quote on Frightful Presence is a good one, but Heroe's feast and a few other spells/features make one immune to fear.


True. I should have ended my post with "of course there are a lot of considerations" but it's really the point actually. 

In our last campaign through the Nines, Tiamat was featured in one way or another, but the cleric in our party didn't have the gem-encrusted bowl required to cast Heroes' Feast so he never prepared it. And that makes sense, because we were much lower level before we wound up in Hell and there was never an opportunity to get that expensive material component while we were stuck there leveling up.

So it's a question of how "white room" is the remark that a party can easily take down Tiamat? (And of course, "party" here really means two wizards with two very specific spells.)

Re: Capstones, I actually understand PP's point, even if I'm okay with the current incarnation. But yeah, it is sort of this out-of-nowhere ability, different to, and in addition to, an already powerful boost (unlimited wildshape). But I'm good with it. Makes it more "natural" in my mind, like the effects just manifest without needing incantation or gestures.

That said, I wouldn't mind the barbarian capstone getting a little boost  :Small Cool: .

----------


## animorte

> One of the reasons I MC'd at level 20 with my lore bard was that the capstone was massively underwhelming.


I mentioned in the UA something directly along the lines of, If its stronger and more exciting to take 1 level in a different class instead of reaching level 20, the level 20 isnt good enough.

I suppose one person could define good wildly different than another person.




> My DM'ing style is...idiosyncratic at best. So I may not be the most help. Generally for me, T4 is kinda a victory lap.


Youre not opposed to starting new threads, as I may or may not have mentioned somewhere.  :Small Tongue: 

Would you mind starting up another thread in Roleplaying with *Tier 4 Play: Tips and Experience*, starting with the wonderful information youve thrown down here? Im sure Korvin is already on board.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Pex

> So it's a question of how "white room" is the remark that a party can easily take down Tiamat? (And of course, "party" here really means two wizards with two very specific spells.)


Heh.

Whenever I read stuff like this about Tiamat I have to laugh forever more. In one of my games, while playing a Paladin of Torm we freed Tiamat from Avernus, on purpose, and Torm was ok with it. (Bahamut too.) She became an ally in war against Asmodeous. Before this our party had developed a cordial and eventual outright friendship with the Chromatic Dragons.

It becomes difficult for me to see Tiamat and Dragons as an enemy in other games. It's happened before. Ever since Meepo I hate having to fight kobolds.

----------


## Segev

> Heh.
> 
> Whenever I read stuff like this about Tiamat I have to laugh forever more. In one of my games, while playing a Paladin of Torm we freed Tiamat from Avernus, on purpose, and Torm was ok with it. (Bahamut too.) She became an ally in war against Asmodeous. Before this our party had developed a cordial and eventual outright friendship with the Chromatic Dragons.
> 
> It becomes difficult for me to see Tiamat and Dragons as an enemy in other games. It's happened before. Ever since Meepo I hate having to fight kobolds.


One DM I play with a lot gets very frustrated with my tendency to play PCs who want to make friends with the enemies. Another is fine with it, mostly, but still makes sure to have intractable foes out there because other PCs in that group often want to smash the baddies and take their stuff.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I mentioned in the UA something directly along the lines of, If its stronger and more exciting to take 1 level in a different class instead of reaching level 20, the level 20 isnt good enough.


I may be alone in this opinion, but something I like about D&Done is the idea of "at level 20 you choose your capstone" with the various epic boon options. Granted, the epic boons probably need another scrub to give them "this is a capstone/great icing on the cake" feel, but I think they are headed in the right direction with that.

----------


## stoutstien

> I may be alone in this opinion, but something I like about D&Done is the idea of "at level 20 you choose your capstone" with the various epic boon options. Granted, the epic boons probably need another scrub to give them "this is a capstone/great icing on the cake" feel, but I think they are headed in the right direction with that.


I don't see how tryin to introduce multiple options for capstones, that can also be cross classes, can be easier to introduce effectively as a single option. WotC hasn't been good at transferrable resources as a whole. If you go down to brass tacks that's pretty much the entirety of the multi-classing issue.

----------


## animorte

> I may be alone in this opinion, but something I like about D&Done is the idea of "at level 20 you choose your capstone" with the various epic boon options. Granted, the epic boons probably need another scrub to give them "this is a capstone/great icing on the cake" feel, but I think they are headed in the right direction with that.


I agree. I like that as the capstone, theyre just silly imbalanced.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I don't see how tryin to introduce multiple options for capstones, that can also be cross classes, can be easier to introduce effectively as a single option. WotC hasn't been good at transferrable resources as a whole. If you go down to brass tacks that's pretty much the entirety of the multi-classing issue.


 As I wander through various capstones, I really like the paladin capstones. 
the Barbarian +4 STR +4 CON is darned good, and it leans hard into the big strong warrior theme.  
The Fighter's fourth attack ought to come at level 17. (see cantrips 4 dice for comparison) ... separate topic. 
The other capstones are all over the map. 
The druid one is quite good.  Wizard is decent.  (Their 18th level feature is arguable better ... )  
Bard and Ranger are "what?" as is Monk.  
Warlock's makes thematic sense - _I need your aid now, more than ever!_

----------


## stoutstien

> As I wander through various capstones, I really like the paladin capstones. 
> the Barbarian +4 STR +4 CON is darned good, and it leans hard into the big strong warrior theme.  
> The Fighter's fourth attack ought to come at level 17. (see cantrips 4 dice for comparison) ... separate topic. 
> The other capstones are all over the map. 
> The druid one is quite good.  Wizard is decent.  (Their 18th level one is really good)  
> Bard and Ranger are "what?" as is Monk.  
> Warlock's makes thematic sense - I need your aid now, more than ever!


Exactly. Not imagine you were trying to make all those available to everyone and mostly balanced.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Exactly. Not imagine you were trying to make all those available to everyone and mostly balanced.


 I think they have broken down the 20th level boons by Expert/Arcane/Priest/Warrior, haven't they? 
Lemme check. 
No, there's a bunch of mix and match. 
As I noted, needs at least another scrub.
Basically, the real capstone that D&Done provides is at level 18 (19 is an ASI and 20 is a 'pick one') but that makes some sense to me: you get to use the capstone before the character is 'done' at level 20.

----------


## Segev

The epic boons need a huge rethink. I think the first step needs to just be to really, really beef them up and err on the side of them being overpowered. But it still is likely that they'll need to make them class-specific, or make some class-specific ones.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> The epic boons need a huge rethink. I think the first step needs to just be to really, really beef them up and err on the side of them being overpowered. But it still is likely that they'll need to make them class-specific, or make some class-specific ones.


At which point you've reinvented class features.

Re-usable generic elements like that are tricky to get right, precisely because they're
a) fungible (you can pick any one)
b) not tied to the rest of the class's fiction or mechanics (thus no system incentives to pick anything but the strongest)

Which means generally, if given free choice from a list, many people will gravitate toward the same small set of strongest (for a give playstyle) ones. Which means the rest are mostly either surplus or traps.

------

It's another case where they seem to be trying to ape PF2e...without actually building the rest of the framework. And PF2e was aping more "build a bear" systems, which have differential costs and frequently _escalating_ costs. Doing build-a-bear in a class/level system will always be awkward. It's more tolerable if done like the warlock, where you have an in-class list of options you can pick from, some level-gated. Having cross-class "list of options" just causes jank. And yes, feats are very much on that jank list. Great for customization, but very quickly turn into taxes.

----------


## Segev

> At which point you've reinvented class features.


Whaaaat? I didn't even realize! <_< >_>

Yeah, I know, I didn't even mean to be coy about it. Sorry for not closing the loop there.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Whaaaat? I didn't even realize! <_< >_>
> 
> Yeah, I know, I didn't even mean to be coy about it. Sorry for not closing the loop there.


 :Small Big Grin:  Just reinforcing, I guess. Glad we're on the same page on that.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The epic boons need a huge rethink. I think the first step needs to just be to really, really beef them up and err on the side of them being overpowered. But it still is likely that they'll need to make them class-specific, or make some class-specific ones.


In the interest of standardization in benefit, it would be helpful if they were all like Spell Mastery: 

"You can now {do this cool thing that makes sense for your class}.  When you do so, you cant do so again until you finish a short or long rest." 

*Spoiler: The Example: Signature Spells*
Show


When you reach 20th level, you gain mastery over two powerful spells and can cast them with little effort. Choose two 3rd-*‐‑level wizard spells in your spellbook as your signature spells. You always have these spells prepared, they dont count against the number of spells you have prepared, and you can cast each of them once at 3rd level without expending a spell slot. When you do so, you cant do so again until you finish a short or long rest.  If you want to cast either spell at a higher level, you must expend a spell slot as normal.



Or maybe once per long rest

*Spoiler: Devotion Paladin Capstone*
Show

Holy Nimbus
At 20th level, as an action, you can emanate an aura of sunlight. For 1 minute, bright light shines from you in a 30-*‐‑foot radius, and dim light shines 30 feet beyond that.  Whenever an enemy creature starts its turn in the bright light, the creature takes 10 radiant  damage. In addition, for the duration, you have advantage on saving throws against spells cast by fiends or  undead. Once you use this feature, you cant use it again until you finish a long rest.

----------


## Ionathus

I like the suggestion to move Fighter's 3rd Extra Attack to 17. By 20 that final attack is nice but even more outshone by other more magical abilities. 

What do people think of unlimited action surge at 20? I feel like that would actually help the fighter feel fully realized in their core role, like Archdruid does.

Probably too strong but given how martials fall off at higher levels it doesn't feel game-ruining.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> I like the suggestion to move Fighter's 3rd Extra Attack to 17. By 20 that final attack is nice but even more outshone by other more magical abilities. 
> 
> What do people think of unlimited action surge at 20? I feel like that would actually help the fighter feel fully realized in their core role, like Archdruid does.
> 
> Probably too strong but given how martials fall off at higher levels it doesn't feel game-ruining.


I would actually give them a subclass related capstone, similar to the Paladin's capstone. As for unlimited Action Surge...I feel like that would be far stronger than anything else. You're basically giving the Fighter a full extra action each turn. Not even a limited Action like Haste gives, but a full on Action. That's pretty strong, especially in the hands of a level 20 character that likely has at least one magic item that does something with their action.

Even if they don't have a cool magic item, you can do a lot with a free action.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> What do people think of unlimited action surge at 20? I feel like that would actually help the fighter feel fully realized in their core role, like Archdruid does.


PB action surges per short rest?

----------


## stoutstien

> PB action surges per short rest?


No reason to scale anything that comes online that late off Prof. Just text bloat.

----------


## Snails

> True. Archdruid is powerful and it's really one subclass that makes it worth looking at twice. The built in subtle spell is ok IMO because druids in general spend more time concentrating than casting. 
> *Note in this case i don't think the capstone is more powerful than lower level features. Over half of the lv 14 subclass options are better imo*


I see it similarly.  

Having lots of HPs is a defensive ability that can be bypassed by not attacking HPs.  It is rare that such a simple defensive advantage is an actual real problem at the table.  Very dumb and boring monsters who are completely lacking in tactics have trouble dealing with an Archdruid in a toe to toe fight?  Good.

The most dangerous spellcasters were already very rarely getting counterspelled much by Tier 3, because they are going to burn the spell slot to counterspell that counterspell.  That the 20th level druid "catches up" with a 9th level wizard is not something I can imagine is worth worrying about.

My only beef with the Archdruid ability is it is so much better for Moon Druids than the other kinds of druid.  That is annoying, but I do not see it as a genuine problem that needs to be fixed.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> No reason to scale anything that comes online that late off Prof. Just text bloat.


 Action surges come on line at level 2. But as a capstone, I suppose that would be a case of 'too little too late'

----------


## Catullus64

> 1. Having lots of HPs is a defensive ability that can be bypassed by not attacking HPs.  It is rare that such a simple defensive advantage is an actual real problem at the table.  Very dumb and boring monsters who are completely lacking in tactics have trouble dealing with an Archdruid in a toe to toe fight?  Good.
> 
> 2. The most dangerous spellcasters were already very rarely getting counterspelled much by Tier 3, because they are going to burn the spell slot to counterspell that counterspell.  That the 20th level druid "catches up" with a 9th level wizard is not something I can imagine is worth worrying about.
> 
> 3. My only beef with the Archdruid ability is it is so much better for Moon Druids than the other kinds of druid.  That is annoying, but I do not see it as a genuine problem that needs to be fixed.


(Numbering Mine)

Point 1 is very true.

Point 2 is even truer when you consider, as I said before, how few published enemies even have _Counterspell_ in their repertoire to begin with.

Point 3: The gap in Archdruid's value between Moon druids and everybody else may be smaller than you think.  Druids with more versatile and powerful casting abilities than Moon benefit from being able to use those spells while in useful forms (Flying, swimming, burrowing, unique senses). The unlimited-use thing is also really great now that WotC has started making alternate features that expend Wild Shape uses, which I read as benefitting from Archdruid (namely Stars, Spores, and Wildfire).

----------

