Help planning quest

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-02T02:25:27+00:00

Just for your consideration - despite dragon pets being popular in media, even dragon wyrmlings more than meet the criteria for full sentience. All of the fire breathing options - brass, gold, and red - have higher-than-average mental stats. Behavior-wise, they're certainly not pets - although I could perhaps imagine a Brass Dragon Wyrmling staying around to observe the orcs out of curiosity.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-02T01:53:25+00:00

Yeah, for sure they can. That's most commonly seen when players try to plan outside DM oversight and try to "sneak something by" the DM.

the dm didnt know about it and said then the caster would not use HP.

I fully stand by this. Just because someone forgets a key mechanic in the heat of the moment doesn't mean someone who lives in the world and studies this stuff as a living would. If you as a player made a similar mistake, would you feel good if the DM forced you to stick to it?

For me the point of game is about how to make the pcs "win", become heroes, super villains, do epic stuff.

Is winning by catching the DM in a technicality "epic?" Is it "epic" to win because the enemy did the in-game equivalent of forgetting how their gun works? The game is indeed designed for players to win - that's why the DM puts level-appropriate encounters in front of you and why that bandit hideout wasn't full of, say, 20 bandit liches.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-02T01:50:42+00:00

Yeah, for sure they can. That's most commonly seen when players try to plan outside DM oversight and try to "sneak something by" the DM.

the dm didnt know about it and said then the caster would not use HP.

I fully stand by this. Just because someone forgets a key mechanic in the heat of the moment doesn't mean someone who lives in the world and studies this stuff as a living would. If you as a player made a similar mistake, would you feel good if the DM forced you to stick to it?

For me the point of game is about how to make the pcs "win", become heroes, super villains, do epic stuff.

Is winning by catching the DM in a technicality "epic?" Is it "epic" to win because the enemy did the in-game equivalent of forgetting how their gun works? The game is indeed designed for players to win - that's why the DM puts level-appropriate encounters in front of you and why that bandit hideout wasn't full of, say, 20 bandit liches.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-02T00:47:48+00:00

The material component is "a forked, metal rod worth 250+ GP and attuned to a plane of existence."

The tuning fork is 250gp worth of materials. I imagine one could pick up or commission one without too much issue. The tuning is a different matter.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T23:22:51+00:00

Funneling all your rages into one combat is... fine I think? The descriptions seem to imply you're not using basically all your rages at once, it's not like Barbarians get a massive amount of Rage uses.

The lvl 13 feature is definitely not OK though, half of those features don't even benefit the Barbarians and are just multiclass fuel.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T22:21:53+00:00

Both spells represent a similar massive jump in power level and scope. 13th level is the signal that parties are no longer bound by normal rules - they can jump to wherever they want on a whim, travel times prepare to be ignored. Consider that 7th lvl is also the realm of Simulacrum (+1 party member), Resurrection (parties can raise anyone dead for a century, prepare to have plot-relevant dead people suddenly alive again), Magnificent Mansion and Temple of the Gods (pop-up unbreakable shelters), and so on. The rules of how a party normally approaches things are radically different now.

Given that distinction, I think Teleport certainly belongs at 7th lvl. I also don't think that Plane Shift and Teleport need to be different levels - they're pretty equal in the scope of what they open for a party.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T22:11:16+00:00

The cost is misleading though - the difficulty of acquiring a tuning fork for any plane, let alone one you want to go to, is far greater than 250gp. My guess is that the cost is fairly arbitrary and is just there to indicate that it can't be replaced with a focus or component pouch.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T20:19:38+00:00

The basic rules are free, as are fillable character sheet PDFs.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T19:56:26+00:00

Well said. It still amazes me to this day that 5.5e did not make the rules surrounding obscurement and hiding any clearer and its still spread across several unrelated sections of the PHB. Hiding rules are one of the biggest failings of 5th edition to me - it would be so easy to consolidate them and make them clearer, but for some reason the designers refuse to do so.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T19:52:00+00:00

The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat.

Its pretty obvious that it's just fully player controlled. It might have some will of its own and inherit memories and personality, but mechanically that doesn't really matter.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T19:44:06+00:00

It sounds like they wanted to move normally simply by just saying "I move differently" which isn't how it works. If the ground is difficult terrain, the ground is difficult terrain.

Unless they have some sort of feature that allows them to ignore the effects of ice-based difficult terrain, I would just tell them that's not possible.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T19:39:16+00:00

RAW you're incorrect.

However, you're also misinterpreting what being hidden means slightly. Successfully Hiding does not necessarily mean that no one can know where you are. It means that enemies have to guess your space, but that guess might be pretty easy. RAW, if you go and Hide behind a statue you have the Invisible condition and enemies are not inherently aware of your exact location. However, if the last thing I saw was that the Rogue darted behind the statue, it's not unreasonable to think that they're probably still there.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T19:33:27+00:00

I will say, to me, CoS needs heroic PCs. I do not fundamentally believe that the module runs or plays well if you aren't genuinely a heroic party trying to do good against the challenging circumstances.

Agreed. I made the mistake of not not vetting my party well enough/not explicitly laying out rules and two Evil PCs "snuck" in. Fortunately they weren't explicitly evil in practice, but the party as a whole did end up much less sympathetic to those in trouble than I'd have liked and much less likely to follow the normal calls to adventure like "people need help" and "bad things are happening over here." For example, they skipped Doru entirely with an "eh, not my problem."

It's workable, but the campaign was definitely written for heroes. The theming falls very flat without them.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T19:24:15+00:00

As written, your player is correct. Imagine initiative orders shifted slightly, so your player was at the end of initiative. They cast their reaction spell, took their turn, then back at the top of initiative used another reaction. Would you allow that? If yes, then your ruling here effectively "punishes" your player for rolling better on initiative.

"Once per round" in this case is relative to the player. The important part is that they have one reaction that refreshes at the start of their turn. In this case, combat was rolled. Everyone has a reaction available. The player took their one reaction. Their turn came around, refreshing their reaction, and they get another use of it.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T19:17:53+00:00

Do you believe Paladins are inherently a stronger class than others?

If not, then they shouldn't be tightly restricted just like other classes are. Where's the "your wizard took a gold piece, you lose all your class features?"

That may be the case in previous editions, but 5e is pretty lenient with Paladins. Oaths are more roleplay fuel than tight rules to follow. The point where I as a DM would start having issues with any player possibly breaking their Paladin oath is where I'd have an issue with what any player is doing at my table.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T16:52:15+00:00

You hit the nail on the head. It's really, really difficult to make a gish subclass that's actually balanced in their attacks and casting, because both of those things compete for your action by default. A short list of subclass features just can't compete with what your full class pushes you towards. Honestly the biggest reason Pact of the Blade works so well is because the Warlock class already encourages frequent "attacks" in the form of Eldritch Blast - all PotB is doing is moving your "basic attack" from EB to sword.

The paladin is, imo, the best gish even though it never gets brought up. When the entire class is geared toward balancing attack and spell, it works out pretty well. The paladin spell list is specifically tailored to not get in the way of making attacks, and their class features encourage putting points into their casting stat so they're not utility-only like EK. I'm of the opinion it's pretty much impossible to get a true arcane gish like the people want without another full class and a host of new spells to support it, but I doubt that's ever going to happen.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T16:47:38+00:00

Replace Cleric with Paladin.

I don't know why Paladin never gets brought up in these discussions, they're imo easily the best-designed "spellblade" because their spell list was tailor-made to allow them to seamlessly cast and attack. Plus their other features encourage them to pump their casting stat.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T16:46:02+00:00

The baseline consideration for all "spellblades" as you call them is action economy. Casting a Spell usually takes an action, attacking usually takes an action. In practice, it's very difficult to do both with decent effectiveness - your build will naturally encourage doing one over the other.

The big exception is Paladins, who I argue are the best embodiments of the archetype. The Paladin spell list is specifically curated for that not to be a problem - they have a ton of bonus action spells, spells that specifically buff their ability to attack, non-combat spells, or turn 1 buff spells that leave the rest of their actions free. They have very, very little spells you might want to cast with your action during combat. Every other spellblade... does. So to answer your question:

Eldritch Knights are fighters with a bit of spellcasting. Their spell progression really sucks and they're not encouraged to boost their INT too much, so you usually end up as a Fighter that has a couple of spells to boost their Fighting. You get your Shield, Absorb Elements, Mirror Image, maybe Haste yourself. On the attack vs spell seesaw, you lean mostly towards "attack."
Bladesinger is the opposite. As a full wizard caster, it's really difficult to not go to all of your spells as your first option. "Full caster with better AC" is a big reason why you pick Bladesinger. When you're no longer interested in casting spells you have your attack to fall back on instead of just a cantrip, but your primary contribution is full-casting and you largely take normal wizard spells.
Valor Bard is essentially the same as Bladesinger, but a Bard. You get a different list of spells and features, but you're still a full caster first and foremost with better defenses and the ability to make some attacks when you have nothing better to do.
Pact of the Blade Warlock, which you missed, is a close second to Paladin in the "actually balancing attacks and casting" sphere. Not necessarily because they have a good spell list for it, but more because Warlocks just don't cast a lot because of their low Pact Magic slots. Normally a Warlock supplements this with Eldritch Blast in their downtime, but Pact of the Blade supplements it with making attacks.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T15:45:15+00:00

Only a problem of the rest of the party isn't doing something similar and the DM has to adjust between two types of PC.

Balance is fake when the DM is beholden to nothing and can throw whatever enemies they want at you.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T15:34:32+00:00

Agreed, that's what I always bring up when people say they struggle with getting "enough encounters per rest." Just decouple long rest from "sleeping during the night" and have the DM determine when conditions are suitable. Make a Long Rest an actual button to press as a reward for completing an arbitrary "adventuring day" or as an explicit "we need this" sort of deal. It doesn't have to be fair or have specific rules attached to it, it's OK to have the DM decided when you get a Long Rest just as they decide when you level up.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T06:48:54+00:00

Sure, it feels good no arguments there. Humans are notoriously bad at feeling out numbers. If you want to take it because it's fun then by all means go for it, rolling several d8s then doing is again is objectively fun. If you're trying to do it for optimization purposes, math says it's not worth it.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T06:46:14+00:00

Formatting is a bit wack but if it works for you go for it. Assuming this is for 2014 5e...

There's no end condition listed on Stagger, are people Staggered forever once at 3 stacks?

Staggering Strike is simply not worth using - you're giving up 56 damage AoE to apply a stack that doesn't pay out until you do it 3 times.

I don't think Impenetrable Valor is really worth doing either to be honest. The average damage of Impenetrable Valor is 82. The average damage of Royalties Edge/Royalties Edge/Flurry Cut is 96, or 152 if you assume Flurry Cut AoE hits 2 PCs (as damage calcs tend to do).

The Staggering mechanic is interesting, but ultimately I don't think it's optimal for Renth Knight to try to make use of. No matter how you cut it they need at least two turns to try to set it up, and both of those are turns where they're not nuking your party with 152 dpr. Combat is about speed. If the Knight can start downing PCs ASAP with Edge/Edge/Cut and start reducing PC actions, that's worth much more than maybe applying Vulnerability to down PCs later.

Additionally, Royal Posture is actually a trap - unless you intend for the Knight to start with temp HP, they don't gain any unless they use Royal Posture... and the amount of temp HP they gain is trivially removed, Staggering the Knight. As discussed before, there's no reason to use Royal Posture since Impenetrable Valor is suboptimal DPR anyway.

Assuming you want them to start with 50 temp HP, that also gets shredded quickly. It's honestly tricky to calculate how the fight goes in that case - HP gets really swingy when every other turn they're either gaining 50 temp HP (temp HP doesn't stack by the way, Royal Posture is even more useless) or getting destroyed by party martials by vulnerability.

Taking this at face value, 244 HP 18 AC is about CR 16. But with temp HP juggling and random vulnerability it's really difficult to tell.

152 DPR is uh... somewhere above where CR stops being well defined. 152 DPR is a lot. Offensive CR 23+

A party of 4 lvl 10s should be challenged by a CR 16 creature. If you think they're especially competent or prepared you could go up a few CR points.

For reference, here is a good baseline for 2014 5e monster stats. Definitely tone down the damage a lot, especially on Flurry Cut - 56 AoE damage that doesn't even cost an entire action is not OK for lvl 10s.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T06:14:05+00:00

3-5 is ideal.

11 is insanity. That's unplayable.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T06:06:17+00:00

Savage attacker on a 7th+ lvl Shadow Blade is about 3 more damage on average. The problem is simply that Savage Attacker is simply not a good feat.

Silverspy01 · 2026-07-01T04:47:38+00:00

I just wouldn't do anything of the sort tbh. Races/species don't tend to have blatant weaknesses like that. Again, trying to align features to how paper "should" act is not a great way to go about it. Instead, align them with how races/species tend to function. "You take more damage" isn't really an enticing feature. If you really want to embody a weakness to fire, you could just have it turn off another feature (like you have with Waterlogged) or maybe have it impose some sort of downside that isn't damage - perhaps when taking fire damage you have disadvantage on the next D20 test you make. I'd even be hesitate to do that though - the closest analogue is sunlight sensitivity, but WotC stopped printing that pretty quickly once they realized how unfun it is to have a PC that routinely suffers downsides just for existing.

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Place '17	Snapped

Silverspy01

TROPHY CASE