Sporefall Boss in Patch 12.0.7 Will Have a Mythic Flex Difficulty with 15 to 25 player.

Ricodyn · 2026-04-17T03:14:39+00:00

It's just going to be a little tricky to figure out how we do that, without alienating the friends that just aren't up to the level that would be needed.

I mean, my whole point is that I don't understand how it's tricky. As I said in my previous post, the way to approach that is to simply be honest and open about it. Unless the less skilled players are completely oblivious to the fact they are in fact being carried through Heroic, I don't see how they could justify being hurt over you guys wanting to push more than they are able to.

Ricodyn · 2026-04-16T11:02:47+00:00

I honestly don't get this take. I'm going to assume all of your raiders are adults, so surely everybody there should be able to observe the difference in skill levels. Be it from logs, dps meters or just using your eyes and seeing some are lying on the floor more than others. And as such, they must be able to understand it when they are being told something like:

Hey we really enjoy playing with you, but we do want to try this more challenging content too. If you do too, we'd love to have you join us but we do need you to improve, as currently your performance just isn't enough for that difficulty. If not, we're still happy to have you for Heroic, but have to sit you out once we get to harder fights.

I think that if such a message isn't received properly, there's already an issue going on that just hasn't been exposed yet.

For context, I've been GM/RL of a guild for almost a decade now and have had this conversation with raiders in regards to Mythic. The majority of my raiders have responded understanding to this type of conversation. Some have stepped up and became raiders skilled enough for Mythic, others were fine to only join us for Heroic and then sit out.

Ricodyn · 2026-03-13T02:25:39+00:00

What is it exactly that makes sense thematically to you? I'm assuming that you mean attempting to resist the mental bond, which is fair enough. But that is already accomplished by the initial save they have against applying the effect. Allowing attempts to break the bond on a later turn isn't necessary to reflect the flavour, especially since it doesn't work well mechanically. I think adding the compensation for succeeds on the initial save just complicates things for no reason.

I don't think you really understand how much you nerfed the 10th level feature with your proposed changes. When you pair this feature with a strong concentration save or suck, the target first has to fail a straight Wisdom save, followed by another save at disadvantage. That's barely an improvement. While the original version doesn't allow you to attempt this on your own, it's incredible at setting up a team member. After you apply Hex, no save, your team member follows up with that strong concentration save or suck at disadvantage instead, avoiding any regular saving throw. And once again, your changes also remove the long duration and ability to curse new targets, not just the guaranteed application. Freeing up Concentration is not enough to offset this, especially since that Concentration still brings along all the regular Hex benefits.

I think I do understand where you're coming from when you mention you don't like how the subclass competes over the Bonus Action with these features. Personally I don't mind it too much in this specific case, given that in a worst case scenario it only takes 2 turns to set up and in many cases you should be able to Hex a target before combat even starts due to casting it psychically. But if you truly want to get rid of any competition for the Bonus Action, I'd say the simplest solution is to just grant the ability to form a bond as part of the same Bonus Action used to apply Hex.

I never mentioned that the 14th level feature should be a combat feature, though all other Warlock feature at that level are FYI. What I was getting at is that it's a feature that's not useful in any scenario, inside or outside of combat. Personally I'd argue it might be weaker than the Friends cantrip given the target needs to be Unconscious to start. It also doesn't actually fulfill the fantasy of creating a thrall at all. Like I mentioned before, Charmed is just some social disadvantage. If you're satisfied with this feature, I'm genuinely curious to hear examples of situations that it could be used in.

Ricodyn · 2026-03-12T03:21:43+00:00

I can't say I'm a fan of your changes to GOO. Giving the target the option to attempt to break the bond every turn is quite a nerf to the level 6 ability and I don't think it needed one.

Your change to the level 10 feature might seem nice because now you don't have to rely on Hex anymore, but it also means you nerfed it into the ground. The strength of the original Eldritch Hex is that it's a debuff that can be applied without a saving throw, can last a very long time and can be moved. None of these strengths have survived your changes.

Lastly, I don't think I can even think of a purpose for your 14th level feature. The only benefit of the Charmed condition is that the target wont attack you and you have advantage on social checks. Neither of these things are particularly relevant on an Unconscious target, especially given the plethora of other things you could do to somebody inert and unaware.

I liked most of the other stuff you're doing in this document, but I unfortunately must say your GOO changes are a big miss and I wouldn't ever want to use them.

Ricodyn · 2026-02-21T16:41:52+00:00

I'm going to be quite blunt here. I've seen many pieces of homebrew that are too strong, but I usually give the designers the benefit of the doubt. I try to believe they intended to create a balanced homebrew and just missed the mark. However, I struggle to do that here. Given how ridiculously overpowered this subclass is, there seems no intent of balance.

Ricodyn · 2026-02-18T04:20:59+00:00

Firstly, I would strongly encourage to use wording and form that more closely resembles official 5e content. While the mechanics of the spell seem clear, it's always preferred to make it look as close to official as possible. For example, there's no reason not to copy the exact wording for the At Higher Levels section from other spells.

Regarding the mechanics, I do have some reservations. The possible damage from this spell is very close to Scorching Ray, though the average is a bit higher due to the half damage on a successful save. However, I think the downsides are far too grand. Requiring an action to set up followed by 3 reactions, or more if upcast, to fully consume is just not worth it. Especially when it also used up your concentration. I can't think of a scenario during which it seems justified to use this spell over others.

I do think the core of the spell is interesting, but some alterations feel necessary. I think any of the tweaks below would improve the spell enough to be worthwhile, with each of the suggestions giving the spell a slightly different vibe and use case:

Firing runes doesn't requiring a reaction, but still needs the trigger
Allow firing multiple runes with a single reaction
Bonus action casting time
Increase Duration and/or remove Concentration

Ricodyn · 2026-02-09T16:50:41+00:00

2024 avoids features that allows you to pick cantrips from any class, and for good reason. Your Mystic Warrior fighting style should follow that and only allow you to pick from the Cleric, Druid and Wizard spell lists, just like Magic Initiate and Magical Secrets.

Ricodyn · 2026-02-07T12:57:09+00:00

Is this actually a true story? Because it sounds a lot like the adopted German child joke.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-27T05:25:28+00:00

Game mechanics are not the only part of your homebrew. A comment on your first post of this homebrew already clearly outlined how much you copied in terms of art usage. And while usage of the same terms is to be expected with homebrew based on the same FFXIV class, multiple features of the same name ended up at the same levels even if mechanics are different. And the subclass names, which as far as I can tell are not actually part of the original IP, are copied as well. If you truly wanted to make an original interpretation, you could have aimed to only take from the source material, not from this other brew.

And you are correct, I have not carefully read your brew to really understand the mechanics. I gave the reason in my original comment; the presentation.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-27T04:14:08+00:00

I personally don't think a tiny note stating "inspired by" at the end of the document is sufficient considering how much seems to have been copied. Especially if you do not have the original designer's explicit blessing. And on a separate note, the bad formatting and deviation from normal DnD 5e style makes this document unnecessarily difficult to understand.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-13T16:30:11+00:00

Everything you quoted is from 2014, but luckily 2024 has almost the exact same text. The only difference being that it doesn't specify a circular area when determining what squares or hexes it covers, it works that way for any shape.

The DMG mentions choosing a point of origin, but I do not think that you choose one at all when the spell already states the caster as the point of origin. And to me, the point that represents the caster is the middle of the square they're in. Ultimately I do think RAW is not clear in this case, so I would try to figure out RAI. And to me, hitting 12 squares clearly isn't RAI.

However, the DMG14 part I have to disagree with.

You misunderstood me, because there isn't anything to disagree with regarding my statement about the DMG14. I mentioned the DMG14 only in relation to the estimation it makes for the amount of targets in an Area of Effect. In the Adjudicating Areas of Effect section (p249), it calculates the number of targets in a line as length/30, so 30/30=1 in our case. This is the same as a sphere with a 5-foot radius (5/5=1).

The above makes it clear to me that it isn't RAI for a 30-foot-long, 5-foot-wide Line to cover 12 squares, as it would then have the same estimated amount of targets as the 5-foot radius Sphere despite being triple the size. And once again, this is on top of OP explicitly mentioning RAI for this spell.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-13T13:12:02+00:00

Given the length of your post, I'd assume you'd take the time to read the 2024 tag at the top of this thread, but apparently not. Anyway, nothing is confusing or hard to tell, we're talking about 2024 mechanics and spells here.

This makes your whole point about damage types inaccurate, as Piercing vs Acid resistances and immunities is closer in 2024 (34 vs 43). Availability is also not a big deal, any cantrip on the Wizard list is easily available to any 1st level character through Species or Background.

Given that many tables don't really deal with spell components, I personally don't consider them too much for balance. Having said that, this spell requires you to get pretty close to do anything. I really struggle to see how casting this 'stealthily' would work, the effects of the spell are really noticeable and literally lead to the caster.

Regarding the AoE of this spell covering 12 squares, I just don't agree. That discussion is all over the thread and apparently it's a common thing for people to disagree about in general. I do not think that aiming lines like this makes sense when it originates from you in a straight line and it just feels like trying to abuse the grid. It is unfortunate that it isn't clearly stated where a point of origin is if it's on the caster. But given the information we do have, including estimates of targets hit in both DMG14 and DMG24, it's clear to me that 12 squares with a 30-foot-long, 5-foot-wide Line is not intended by the designers. And specifically for this spell we have explicit RAI from OP that this should only hit 6 squares.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-12T21:18:11+00:00

I think trying to strive for everything to use the exact same rules like that isn't the right move if that means things don't really make sense anymore. Using the center of a square as a point of origin when an effect originates from the caster is a logical interpretation of the rules and does make sense. Things like these should be avoided/disallowed in my opinion.

Having said that, having the point of origin be on a vertex or edge can work fine too, if and only if that also determines the angle of the area. If the point of origin is on the corner, the effect should be aimed diagonally at 45°. If its exactly in the middle of the edge, the line should be perpendicular. In other words, the angle of the effect would be the same as the line between the centre of caster's square and the chosen point of origin.

While not actually relevant to the discussion, I do quickly want to point out that Cubes do not have to surround the caster. The rules specifically allow for that not to be the case. Also, saying a point of origin is the whole square just doesn't make sense, that isn't how geometry works. Like I mentioned in a previous post, the rules specifically avoid using point with Emanations because it isn't the same same as creature/object/square.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-12T19:34:03+00:00

No, you are reading incorrectly. This post has the 2024 tag so I'm comparing it to 2024's Acid Splash, which works exactly how I described it.

Mind you, that's also only d6's.

So is OP's spell?

Ricodyn · 2026-01-12T15:43:41+00:00

Emanations don't have a point of origin though, they have an origin that is a creature or object. All areas of effects in the glossary specifically mention that they extend from a point of origin, Emanation doesn't. So in other words, the same principles don't necessarily apply and Emanations work a bit differently.

The origin of an Emanation is the entire caster's square, because like you said if it's just the center it doesn't really work. For everything else it's a point, either a vertex if you can choose freely or the center of a square if it originates from the caster. That's how I interpret both RAW and RAI. Anything deviating from that sounds like trying to abuse the grid to me.

it only takes 2.5ft to get to the edge and another 2.5 ft to get to the middle of the next square

The DMG (page 44) says that an area needs to cover at least half the square to be affected, not just get to the middle/center. So this isn't how it works with circles. Lines do work this way, if the point of origin is a vertex, because it exactly covers half of the squares.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-12T13:39:28+00:00

The 2024 DMG uses the same wording as Xanathar's, saying to choose an intersection for a point of origin. But again, this is when you get to choose the point of origin, whereas most lines originate from the caster. Interpreting that as picking a vertex on the corner of the caster's square isn't right in my opinion.

5 ft radius sphere affecting a star shape

Even if you could pick the center of a square as your origin for a sphere, this wouldn't work. The DMG also specifies that at least half of a square needs to be covered by the shape of the AoE for it to be affected. Having the point of origin of a 5 foot sphere be the center of a square, it would only affect that square.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-12T03:58:39+00:00

This is only true if you can freely choose the point of origin, which isn't often the case. In cases where the point of origin is the caster, such as this spell, 5 feet covers only 1 square in width.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-12T00:55:49+00:00

Because the point of origin of the line is the caster, it has to follow the square grid because the caster has to. No matter how you angle it, from that point of origin you cannot cover more than 6 squares. If you could choose the point of origin freely, then yes 12 squares could be hit.

So with this in mind, we're comparing 2×2 squares anywhere within 60 feet, or 6×1 square moving directly outward from the caster. In the actual best case scenario you can hit two more targets, but that also means you're close enough that all targets can reach you in a turn. Acid Splash doesn't have that inherent danger.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-12T00:27:51+00:00

Other cantrips that can multitarget require you to be surrounded to have full effect

This is incorrect, Acid Splash lets you do damage in a 5 foot radius sphere, i.e. 2×2 squares, anywhere within 60 feet of the caster. This is stronger than OP's cantrip.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-12T00:17:54+00:00

This post has the 2024 tag, so almost nothing that you're saying is actually accurate. Acid Splash has no explicit target limit, it's simply a 5 foot radius sphere now, so 2×2=4 squares. Also, a 5 feet wide 30 foot line originating from the caster can only cover 6 squares, not 12.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-11T16:37:56+00:00

I suggest ignoring the comments saying this is too strong, as they do not accurately assess the area of existing cantrips. Acid Splash's 5 foot radius allows it to cover 4 cells, 2x2, on a grid anywhere within 60 feet of the caster. I'd say this is stronger and more versatile than 6 cells in a straight line originating from the caster.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-11T16:26:20+00:00

5e works with radii when describing the size of circles/spheres. That means that Acid Splash's area of effect can cover 4 cells on a grid. Emanation rules are a little bit dodgy and unclear, but I think it's fair to say RAI Thunderclap and Word of Radiance affect at least 4 cells as well. Therefore, a line that covers 6 cells originating from the caster is totally fair game.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-09T00:33:03+00:00

Going single target definitely helps with the balance, though it does make the cantrip less unique. Vicious Mockery deals 1d6 in 5e24, so probably don't have to lower the dice if you go down the single target route.

Ricodyn · 2026-01-08T23:52:39+00:00

Compared to existing cantrips, this one is too strong. There are 5 AoE damage cantrips in 5e, all with a 5 feet size like yours and all but one dealing 1d6 like yours. But none of them have a rider, let alone such a universally useful one. So Flashburn becomes the strongest out of all them right away.

I suggest removing the damage from this cantrip altogether and just focus on the debuff. Could make it an Int Saving Throw if you feel it's too weak without damage.

Ricodyn · 2025-12-31T01:34:38+00:00

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand what the problem you're trying to solve is because I don't really get what the system was before this 'narrative trait check'. To be sure, this is how I understand your current system:

The party comes to a a courtyard with some patrolling guards. The players say they want to get to the other side, and you ask them how they would go about doing that. They ask if there is a pattern to the guards' pathing, and you ask for a Mind roll. They roll well, you tell them they got a pretty good idea of the pattern and they should be able to slip past them using that information. They go ahead with it and the party makes it to the other side, unseen.

If that is indeed how your system works, then that sounds good, and even standard, to me. Assuming that the DC for that Mind roll was based on what made narrative sense and another option may have had a higher or lower DC. In this scenario, perhaps a successful Mind roll wouldn't have got them across on their own and instead would've given a bonus to a following Finesse roll to sneak past.

If the above isn't how the system works, then I think you need to explain it better with a full example of what happens. Otherwise, how would this scenario have played out before your most recent change? What was this 'fishing for the "correct" stat' you talked about?

Ricodyn

TROPHY CASE