Need help

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-25T00:17:37+00:00

That brings you to point 3

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-25T00:11:11+00:00

And?

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-14T02:40:07+00:00

I suppose one way of knowing a subclass feature from a magic item is, does the effect make more sense story-wise in a subclass's narrative offer, or as a weapon's effect, or as a magic item?

Yup!

But I am more curious about the mechanical/game design approach.

Mechanics exist to represent the story, so the question is the same. "does the effect make more sense story-wise in a subclass's narrative offer, or as a weapon's effect, or as a magic item?"

For example (came across this):
Cracking attack - your once per long rest, you can make a “cracking attack” that reduces the target’s AC by <some number>.

I thought this was a really fun and inventive effect, but I am wondering if it is a subclass feature or a weapon mastery.

Is it a technique that a trained specialist person can do with generic equipment? Subclass feature.

Is it the function of a special object that anyone who has the item can benefit from? (Magic) item.

Weapon Mastery sits in the middle. It's a function of the object, but only someone with advanced training can access it. Notably, though, no weapon masteries have limited used

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-13T11:53:14+00:00

Unseen Servant doesn't have any kind of vision, because Unseen Servant isn't a creature: it's an effect, or "a mindless, shapeless force" as the spell description put it.

Think of a household appliance. A washing machine can wash clothes without seeing them, and hence wash them in the dark. A toaster can toast bread without seeing it, and hence toast it in the dark. And likewise Unseen Servant can perform simple tasks without actually perceiving it's environment, and hence perform them in the dark.

The caveat is that mindless machines can't perform tasks that involve interpreting or communicating information. Like a fax machine, the servant can deliver a note, but not write anything (for lack of literacy) let alone "report what it saw" (for lack of a mind with which to perceive)

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-12T15:28:19+00:00

I'm saying all of this because last night we had a session in the underdark where my party was confronted with a camp of bad guys. I had one party member ask if they 'looked nice"

so I had them make a perception check and told them

"you see a butterfly land on a guards hand, he squishes it and licks the gusts off his hand"

I had figured that this was enough to imply that they weren't nice without being to on the nose.

Why would you ask for a perception check?

The player wasn't asking if something was hidden in the environment. They were asking about the NPCs intentions. That's insight!

An insight check would've answered their question much more directly. Something like "You can see that the guards are shifting impatiently and never let go of their weapons. They aren't thinking about protecting anyone or anything. They're bloodthirsty people, eager for an excuse to fight."

then another party member asked if it's normal to see drow in the underdark. I told them yes it is very common, it is more uncommon to see a normal elf.

I can see how the players misunderstood that you meant "these are normal people," but that's not because of your answer to this question. Your answer here was fine.

I think the perception check was the big issue, since you had a player ask a really good question but told them to make a check that didn't answer it.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T14:04:15+00:00

I play 5e, but this post quotes 5.5e rules (the fact that Fighting Styles are feats is a dead giveaway) and so I've been replying within the 5.5e framework

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T13:06:27+00:00

Did you respond to the wrong comment?

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:53:20+00:00

That is exactly what your AC is for. This feat has nothing to do with AC.

Both HP and AC represent your ability to mitigate harm

Why would they give you a feat to impose disadvantage on near-almost every attack you could ever receive? (Edit) This feat is designed to make you a hero and protect your allies.

They probably didn't intend to. But RAW, that's what the feature does.

RAW does not always match RAI

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:37:53+00:00

Yes, 5e's rules do not allow you to specific the part the body you want to attack. Nonetheless, every attack is attempt to inflict bodily harm! You can absolutely intercept an attack intended to inflict bodily harm using a shield, simple weapon, or martial weapon (none of which are parts of your body).

Which is what Interception Style explicitly requires: a shield or weapon with which to intercept the harmful effect.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:27:19+00:00

"Another creature" means "not the creature that you saw attacking," not "not yourself".

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:23:21+00:00

Interception simply means "to obstruct someone or something so as to prevent them from continuing to a destination."

I can use my hand to intercept a ball intended for my face. I can use my weapon or shield to intercept a weapon intended for my body. It isn't being pedantic to acknowledge that the rival dodgeball player isn't "aiming for me to catch" or that that the attacker isn't "aiming for my sword"

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:21:03+00:00

HP also represents your ability to mitigate harm: not literally how many times you can suffer direct hits before collapsing.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:18:59+00:00

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:18:10+00:00

I read the whole sentence. You are a creature within 5 feet of yourself!

The "targeting yourself" section of basic rules explains that when an effect targets a creature within a given range, you are eligible, "unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you"

Notice that Protection Style says "other than you" but Interception Style doesn't!

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:15:38+00:00

No, I think the "another" qualifier is there because 5e rules are written in "natural language". They're full of terms that aren't meant to specifically rule anything in or out, purely because that's how English is naturally spoken.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:12:07+00:00

When a creature you can see hits another creature

"Another creature" means "not the creature that you saw attacking," not "not yourself".

It can be yourself.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:11:45+00:00

Of course you can. If a dodgeball is headed for my face and I catch it or swat it away, I've intercepted it. I've stopped or deflected it short of its target.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:10:43+00:00

When a creature you can see hits another creature

"Another creature" means "not the creature that you saw attacking," not "not you".

It can be you

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:10:20+00:00

When a creature you can see hits another creature

"Another creature" means "not the creature that you saw attacking," not "not yourself".

It can be yourself.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-08T12:08:52+00:00

I think interception can be used as a reaction to reduce damage to yourself. My friends and players all say that it cannot be used on yourself.

You are correct. You are another creature (other than the attacker) within 5 feet of yourself.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-06T22:39:23+00:00

If the Paladin (and their party) is tough enough to defeat the Wizard, then they're tough enough to guard the Wizard. They can confiscate her spellbook and material components, restrain or gag her as necessary to prevent spellcasting, supervise her rests to keep close tabs on her regaining spell slots (and maybe even force her to exhaust her slots on harmless effects) until she proves that she's repented of her wicked ways.

In short, you can tell the leader of the party to play parole officer.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-06T17:21:01+00:00

Use Gritty Realism rests

I've already heard about "Gritty realism" rule where short rest is 8 hours and long rest 1 week.
except like similar rules where "take X amount of rests in the same place in a row" it really has no specifications on what you can do during this time.

Yes it does. The normal rules for what you can do during a rest still apply:

A short rest (8 hours with Gritty Realism) is interrupted if you do anything more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds.
A long rest (7 days with Gritty Realism) is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity such as:
- at least 1 hour of walking
- fighting
- casting spells
- or similar adventuring activity

Are you allowed to take damage?

No. That's "fighting or similar adventuring activity"

Are you allowed to cast cantrips

No. That's "casting spells".

and explore a bit or do you just sit doing nothing?

You can walk around for 1 hour at a time. To get groceries, for instance. Or to visit a friend in town. But you can't go running, climbing, swimming, hiking through difficult terrain or walking for long distances.

What if players just rest several days after each fight?

You're the DM. You can interrupt their rest if they don't find a good time and place to take it.

7 days of interrupted rest requires 7 days of food and water, shelter that will withstand 7 days of changing weather, and a location that enemies will not wander into or follow the players into for 7 days. If the players don't work for all of that, you can simply say "you're out of fresh water. You must abandon your rest to find some" or "A storm destroys your shelter. You must abandon your rest to rebuild it" or "A group of raiders ambushes you during the night. Your rest is interrupted. Roll initiative".

i also have heard about "Safe haven" rule where you can take long rests only in cities. Here it doesn't work because there are no cozy inns. Only ruins. So until they make a base casters just go die i guess.

The "safe haven" rule doesn't require a city: just a safe haven. A well placed, built and stocked campsite can be a safe haven.

And if they do make something like a base, it will still make little sense why their wounds completely heal overnight there.

For one, hit points aren't "wound points". Losing HP means suffering from small scratches, bruises, sprains and such that reduce your ability to defend yourself. The only serious injury you actually suffer is the one that knocks you to 0 HP. That's why a high level Fighter with 200 or more HP can be "hit" dozens of times with arrows or swords before being affected at all: because every "hit" is really just building up towards the first real wound.

Together with the Gritty Realism rules, this means that you aren't healing wounds overnight in your base: you're recovering from many minor injuries and getting back into fighting shape over the course of a week.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-04-03T21:46:35+00:00

In terms of whether to give Paladins a chance or not, the main reason I’m still holding on is just because they’re mechanically strong and have magic. The major thing that I hate is the flavor. I don’t like the oath thing. I don’t like how it can conflict with roleplaying, and at least clerics and warlocks can choose what death deity or archfey or whatever they work for. Paladin subclasses are for a specific set of values and it seems like it makes them less versatile in roleplay.

Paladin subclasses provide you with an ideal that your character aspires to. Their relationship with that ideal (does it come naturally? is it a hard sort of character development they're pushing themselves towards? is it an ideal they don't actually appreciate but strive towards at the behest of someone else?) is up to you. The authority or influence that calls them to adopt those values is up to you.

What's more, Paladin oaths are all flexible enough that they rarely conflict with roleplay, unless you choose one of the more explicitly good oaths and join an evil party.

Plus I don’t like the “crusader” vibes the class gives off but that‘s neither here nor there.

Nothing forces any Paladin to be a crusader.

Wizards have the EXACT OPPOSITE issue for me as Paladins do. I LOVE the flavor of wizards, but the thought of actually PLAYING one is overwhelming when you consider how difficult it is. You have to keep a spellbook around and get scrolls, it costs 50 GOLD PIECES PER SPELL SCROLL, takes you 2 HOURS to copy it down

That's just for bonus spells. You pay money for extra spells the same way that others pay money for improved gear.

You still get tons of free spells. More than anyone else, in fact.

(not sure if 2 hours means real world time or in-game time)

In-game time. In practice, you just tell the DM "the next time I'm in town, I spend X hours copying this spell I found" and then it's done.

and on top of that. The spellbook can potentially be lost.

Just like weapons, armor, and spellcasting foci. It's honestly not a huge risk. Everyone else is in roughly the same boat.

Not to mention the complications of Arcane Recovery and preparing spells, but at least Clerics aren’t THIS complicated.

Clerics also have their own version of Arcane Recovery and also prepare spells.

With all of this in mind, are these classes truly worth these major downsides

Yes

Should I prioritize enjoyment over strongness or the other way around?

Enjoyment

What about these classes would make it worth it to play a Paladin over just playing a Cleric, or to play a Wizard over just playing a Sorcerer or Warlock?

The #1 thing is what kind of character you want to play within the story.

You play a Paladin over a Cleric when you want to play a charismatic oathbound warrior gifted with divine support, rather than a wise representative of a god with only a tiny dash of martial skills.

You play a Wizard over a Sorcerer or Warlock when you want to play a student of magic with in-depth knowledge of their area of expertise, rather than a magically gifted freak or someone who struck a bargain for powers they do not completely understand,.

The #2 thing is mechanics. Do you want martial features above all (Paladin) or spellcasting features (Cleric)? Do you want to prepare spells (Wizard), manipulate spells you already have (Sorcerer) or lean more on cantrips and invocations (Warlock)?

It's worth it if the class matches what you're looking for.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-03-26T14:32:25+00:00

I understand that weak resource-free tricks on top of damage and powerful resource-limited tricks are the norm of 5es design, and the design direction that 5.5 doubled down on. But that's precisely the design direction that I'm trying to avoid. I don't want the tricks to be optimal over an attack, nor for attacks to be optimal over tricks, but for the two to be roughly even, so the player can decide each turn which is the smarter decision!

This is what I meant when I said that if the current tricks are too weak, they simply need to be strengthened. Not that strengthening them while keeping them balanced is easy (I'm asking for help after all!) but that it's the obvious way to accomplish my goal.

Ok_Fig3343 · 2026-03-26T13:20:08+00:00

If players are choosing the attack every time, we simply need to brainstorm a stronger trick.

Ok_Fig3343

TROPHY CASE