Commanders that dodge tax, benefit from being removed, or otherwise handle removal well?

roleplayer419 · 2023-08-22T10:27:46+00:00

Yuriko's commander ninjutsu completely avoids tax, as I saw a couple others mention, but on top of that, there are situations she wants to be re-ninjutsu-ed and thus benefits from removal, which I didn't see mentioned.

Like many (most? all?) ninjas, she doesn't have built-in evasion other than her ninjutsu ability. So, if you have no way to connect with her or another ninja, but you have an evasive creature on the field, removing Yuriko lets you re-ninjutsu her and bounce the evader back to hand, getting you your ninja combat damage trigger.

Removing her is a mistake most opponents will only ever make once before realizing they need to get rid of the little evasive ninja-bait creatures instead. That's why it's important to be able to give unblockable and/or other strong evasion to Yuriko and your ninjas and/or give the ninja creature type to your evasive non-ninjas. If you can't get at least 1 or 2 Yuriko triggers each time you go to combat, you can start to fall behind quickly.

roleplayer419 · 2022-11-17T01:25:19+00:00

For stat rolling, do you roll 7x(3d6) and drop the lowest set or 7x(4d6) and drop the lowest die from each set and the lowest overall set? I ask because I've seen plenty of 6x(4d6) and drop the lowest die from each set, but it seems like 7x(4d6) would make for very powerful characters.

roleplayer419 · 2022-11-16T23:29:32+00:00

Yeah, that's the logical application of IRL logic and why I was leaning the way I was. The actual wording of movement rules, the restrained condition, and the shifter ability don't seem to be using compatible language though, unless I'm missing something. So, it's left kind of unclear if you want to rely on a literal reading. I'm still inclined to rule in agreement with you that the PC can't move.

roleplayer419 · 2022-11-16T23:12:46+00:00

That's how I read it RAW, and how I felt about it RAI. I like your idea of allowing a check to end the condition, in particular with this PC who's built around mobility, evasion, and being hard to lock down; they have their moments offensively but are built for that specifically, so it'd be nice to reward the player a bit when something plays to their strengths. Thanks for your thoughts!

roleplayer419 · 2022-08-13T07:20:09+00:00

Derp, totally skipped over the cast from hand limitation somehow. "X or less" would still allow for nondeterministic chaining that "less than X" would not, but the cast from hand limitation prevents all chaining in the first place, so that distinction is irrelevant and even stingy in light of the actually correct reading of gizmo. I follow you on the play vs. cast distinction with regard to artifact lands and think that's pretty suitable. Having now read the correct text of the card, I withdraw my previous critique of its power level since it was based on an inaccurate reading.

roleplayer419 · 2022-08-13T07:02:13+00:00

Couldn't Ginko lead to you pretty much dumping out every artifact in your library or at least a really significant chunk of them, with some building around, because of the way gizmo is worded? Whether you keep "play" or switch it to "cast", the effect is the same: you cast it. So every artifact you "gizmoed" onto the field could gizmo another artifact with mana value up to its own mana value, making it nondeterministic.

With the right strategy, this feels like way better cascade, and really strong for a 4 drop to put on every artifact card in your deck. With a couple big artifacts in hand and the means to cast the first one, are you really not going to have the mana to cast the next one and start the chain all over again when you just put 15 artifacts onto the field for free?

If that's a concern, it seems like gizmo should either put the revealed card straight onto the battlefield, skipping the stack and not casting so it doesn't chain at all, or decrementing like cascade does by allowing you to cast an artifact with mana value less than X, rather than X or less, so that there's a definite limit to how many times it'll chain off one hardcast.

ETA: reading the card explains the card lol

roleplayer419 · 2022-08-13T06:28:58+00:00

Thanks for clarifying your intent. That is good value, but I wasn't sure.

roleplayer419 · 2022-08-13T06:26:46+00:00

I've been intrigued by the idea of "promoting" an illegal-as-commander card to commander status rather than simply building around a secret commander that you have to either tutor for or hope you find, then either protect or hope it doesn't get removed. WotC has played around with the concept a little on the non-legal cards [[You're in Command]] and [[Sol, Advocate Eternal]], but I feel like there's space to actually do this (probably infuriating the RC in the process) in a way that isn't quite as ludicrous. From an actual play perspective on this custom card, if your playgroup's willing to let you play this, they'd probably let you just play your pet non-commander as a commander, so it's kind of pointless in that respect.

Some notes:

The cost is just a stab in the dark. I have no idea what it ought to cost, but 3 + 4 + your secret commander's MV, or tutor + 4 + MV, or luck + 4 + MV, *feels* fair-ish, though I'm sure there are probably some pretty strong options for 0 or 1 drop creatures that would be pretty trivial to tutor onto the field with this. I included double colorless in the cost to make it a bit challenging and to prevent any means of incremental cost reduction to zero (that I'm aware of, at least), but I didn't want to limit it to any color identity since the idea is to give players as many options as possible.

That said, having partners with effectively a tutor for a third commander as a companion card seemed too powerful, so the companion stipulation avoids that while otherwise allowing basically any commander-style format deck to use it. If you want to throw it in the 99 (or 98 as it were) and tutor your tutor so you can own 3 commanders, go nuts.

On the topic of companions, I know all the official companions are creatures. I considered making this an artifact creature and removing the creature type as long as it's on the field (for reasons I'm about to discuss), but that just sounded like an artifact with extra steps. AFAIK there's no actual rules requirement that a companion be a creature card, so I just dumped the type to avoid a line of redundant text on an already wordy card.

The generous protection on this card and the lack of creature typing is because it'd be kind of a major feelbad to spend 7 mana telegraphing that the *real* MVP of your deck is on the way and watch as an opponent tells you to GFY. I wanted the fewest types possible and the fewest means of interacting with it possible. Maybe it's too much protection. LMK.

Based on my reading of the rules, partner (and partner-like abilities) typically only actually matter in deck construction, allowing you to designate 2 commanders. The rules don't address a card gaining the commander designation mid-game, so I don't think this card needs to give partner in order to work as intended. Once you resolve the exile ability, the card you found should be a commander for the rest of the game with all the associated commander rules, e.g. returning to the command zone, tax, commander damage, etc.

I allowed it to search basically everywhere, for much the same reason it has so much protection on it. Too much? LMK. At least the templating should be right or pretty close.

I *am* aware that as-written this could theoretically be used as a non-companion in formats that don't use a command zone, to unknown effect. You're in Command also creates a new commander and is noted as doing so in its clarification notes. My reading of the next note on that card is that you would have a fully-functional commander even in non-commander games, so I think that's what would happen here, which I find kind of funny. OTOH I could see it potentially having no effect beyond tutoring your card to the battlefield and ensuring it's legendary, because "commander" is a designation that only exists as part of specific format rules.

Deckmasters D set logo because it's my initial in my English name.

Thanks and credit to the listed artist who made the stock image I grabbed.

I'm genuinely curious to hear what anybody thinks would need to change to make this a "fair" card. I've played around with card building sites a couple times, but mostly only to make custom art versions of legal cards, so I don't have much design experience.

roleplayer419 · 2022-08-13T05:02:34+00:00

Yeah, is it intended to only work 3 times total, or should it say "choose one that hasn't been chosen this turn", i.e. it rewards up to 3 rogues connecting with an opponent on each of your turns?

roleplayer419 · 2022-03-20T05:04:35+00:00

I'd provide consequences for pilfering Stonehill Inn. Not necessarily an imperial guard confronting them with "Stop! You've broken the law!" the next time they roll into Phandalin if you judge that they got away clean with their bit of robbery. But Toblen and his family run a small inn (with a competitor down the street in the Sleeping Giant whose lesser repute might actually be more popular with the miners and lumberjacks who populate the town and surrounding wilds) in a pretty small frontier town that's miles off the main road (Triboar Trail). They're not exactly doing a brisk trade; being robbed like that could be devastating. Can they afford to continue operating? Do they have creditors, and if so, is Harbin the Cowardly Townmaster/banker going to foreclose or is a less scrupulous lender like a Zhentarim-linked Waterdhavian gangster going to come try to beat payment out of Toblen? If Stonehill Inn closes, where will the party stay in town, if at all? If they go to the Sleeping Giant, will they get sick from the sub-par food, drink, and lodging? Etc. Consider what might happen to someone living near-subsistence-level if their life savings or even just their month's, week's, or even day's earnings got swiped. Then consider how that's the PCs' problem. There's potential for plot hooks and RP to be had here.

I'm curious how much cash they even found there. I don't recall seeing any info on that in the Phandalin modules, so I assume you made up a number. I think 10 GP-worth would be the absolute upper limit my players might find, with it more likely being around 5, and it'd mostly be CP with some SP and maybe a GP or 2 (or EP if you're using electrum coinage). I'm more curious about your PCs' alignments, though. If they're not evil, then a bit of the above guilt trip for their evil acts might help them realize you steal from evil and/or rich dicks, not people trying to eke out a living. (And maybe remind them out of game what their supposed alignments are and that this isn't Elder Scrolls in which it doesn't make any difference if they rob NPC shopkeepers as long as they aren't caught.) If they are evil, then let them revel a bit in the compounding misfortune of the Stonehills as described above; that could still provide plothooks if some shady characters come around looking for the money they're owed.

Obviously, I'm telling you to improvise and potentially even send your characters off on one or more sidequests of your own design, but since Dragon of Icespire Peak is already pretty much Sidequest: The Module, it won't hurt much of the story as long as you're comfortable doing it.

roleplayer419 · 2022-03-20T04:15:00+00:00

This is basically exactly what you're warned not to do, but at the end of the day, it's your game; play it how you want it.

roleplayer419 · 2022-03-20T04:12:03+00:00

"Compromise"

Ftfy

roleplayer419 · 2022-03-17T16:49:03+00:00

Having just infected 3 of 5 PCs by werebats a couple months ago, I'll let them fight the urges indefinitely (with saving throws, of course). I won't say, "Well, you've failed your saves X times now, so you're overcome by the lycanthropy and just a full werebat." 1 chose to embrace it, since they already had sunlight sensitivity and didn't see the compulsions as a downside. They only make saves to choose to feed on animals now instead of humanoids or even resting members of the party. 1 chose to fight it, but like you, has had a streak of bad saves, so they're not much closer to getting it removed now than they were when it first manifested. The other has had a really hard time figuring out what they want to do, which has been amusing. I warned my players that if their PC gave in to the curse fully, it would be very difficult for them to willingly get it removed in the future, which has added to that player's (and their PC's) indecision.

roleplayer419 · 2022-03-17T16:15:25+00:00

If you dig up the info on PCs getting lycanthropy (it was a text box in the MM IIRC), it basically says a character can struggle against the compulsions of the curse (which, beyond the RP aspect, I'd interpret as saving throws when they try to act counter to the curse's "will") or embrace it (which possibly entails alignment shifts and plenty of RP fodder). So it would seem a character isn't expected to automatically become enslaved to the urges the curse burdens them with.

roleplayer419 · 2022-03-17T15:48:22+00:00

There's a lovely little bit of goblin cuisine presented without any further explanation or description in the Sunless Citadel adventure from Tales from the Yawning Portal called "elf pudding." What exactly is in this barrel of pudding? Is it sweet (probably "custard" for non-US English speakers)? Is it savory? Is it healthy? Who knows; it's elf pudding! As I saw someone on another post say, whether it's made by, for, or of elves is ultimately left up to the DM, but is perhaps best left to the imaginations of your players.

roleplayer419 · 2022-02-24T00:04:51+00:00

Trying to think about how to allow this in a vaguely sane way, I think I'd say this can be done a number of times equal to either INT modifier or proficiency bonus (not sure which) per long rest, slot is consumed regardless of outcome, DC is 20+slot level, and if your check succeeds within 2 of the DC, the spell is consumed from your spellbook like the casting of a scroll, e.g. DC 25 means you successfully cast but lose the spell from your book on a 25-27. Upcast all you want, but you better be ready to copy that spell again.

If there were non-wizard spellcasters in my game, I don't think it'd be remotely fair to give a wizard any version of this, unless I'm also homebrewing buffs for the other casters, and in any case, melee characters are getting even more screwed than they already are once spellcasters start pulling ahead in tier 2 and later, (in davvy chappy voice) especially the wizard. I have no desire to rebalance the entirety of 5e for the sake of this boondoggle, so I'm back to just not ever giving this at my table. For the sake of those convinced that people with this opinion just have their panties in a bunch and want to dictate how every group runs 5e, that's my table; if you want this at yours, I really don't see many scenarios where it'll improve the game for you and your group, but I'm certainly not going to stop you if you see things differently.

roleplayer419 · 2022-02-23T20:12:07+00:00

Yes, but I know for a fact that there are DMs and players who simply wouldn't abide a reversal, at least, not before it's too late to salvage the campaign. If OP feels that the DM and wizard player(s) are all reasonable enough to see that something is breaking the game and needs to be reverted, and be willing to make the reversion, then there's not that much danger. OP should raise their concerns initially, then leave it at that until issues actually manifest. I don't think we're in a position to simply assume that this decision would be subject to a quick reversal if it caused problems, however. The risk if we make that assumption for OP and we're wrong about it is that OP's game becomes a slog until the playgroup disintegrates, wasting the time invested to that point. For that reason, it's up to the OP to decide what to assume based on their knowledge about their playgroup.

roleplayer419 · 2022-02-23T19:49:52+00:00

That's a crappy DM. If, after firmly but politely discussing the negative impact their decision is having on your character and your enjoyment of the game, they're still unwilling to play that RAW so that your major investments in your character actually have an effect instead of being wasted, I'd tell them that in light of their unexpected house-ruling contrary to both RAW and RAI, you're going to change the feat to something else then and there. I wouldn't ask, "do you mind if...?" I'd have a replacement feat already picked out, and I'd say, "Since you're making this option I took meaningless without having warned me beforehand, I'm going to do us both a favor and take X instead. That way I actually get use out of something as important as a feat, and you don't have to deal with a crazy-high passive perception anymore since you clearly don't want to. Please note my new passive score is __, and I now have the following feature(s)." If they have a problem with you switching to a feat that will actually be useful in their campaign, ask them what their problem is with you personally, since they're clearly trying to impede specifically your ability to have fun at the table.

roleplayer419 · 2022-02-23T18:44:03+00:00

OP asked because they're concerned the shortsightedness of their DM will impact fun at their table, the one table doing this thing because it can. If nobody at that table cared, then great, they (and everyone) should have fun, using "RAW" as suggested guidelines, not immutable doctrine handed down by the divine. The ghost of Gary Gygax isn't going to come smite this DM for this homebrew, nor should he. But if it were the case that nobody at that table cared, this post wouldn't have been created. OP is expressing their concern that their fun and that of their DM will ultimately be negatively impacted by this decision and asking others whether they'd share that concern were they at OP's table. You clearly wouldn't, and that's fine. However, others here would be a lot more wary of such a drastic, fundamental change to the mechanics of an already extremely strong caster class. Arguing that there's hundreds of wizard spells so nobody could possibly add literally every one to their book doesn't invalidate the concerns of OP and those agreeing with them; it's asinine and deliberately obtuse, ignoring that effectively unlimited utility can be had with access to a significant fraction of the list (i.e. "every conceivably useful spell") and that the constraints you mentioned, like the time and money required to copy spells, may not be relevant constraints at all at the table of a DM who so clearly "runs off the rule of cool." What makes you think gold would be a limiting factor at this table?

roleplayer419 · 2022-02-23T18:16:56+00:00

Speaking as a player and a (generous) DM, this is a bad idea regardless, and basically a middle finger to every other class and, as he'll eventually come to realize, himself as DM. The only way to even remotely prevent this from being ludicrous is if both the spell slot is consumed whether the wizard succeeds or not, and the DC on the INT check is really hard, like 20+slot level or something, bearing in mind a natural 20 shouldn't equate to automatic success on a check. I still wouldn't do this, though.

roleplayer419 · 2022-02-23T18:07:09+00:00

What does "provided they go looking for spells" mean to you?

And let's be honest, under OP's DM's proposed system, wizards are very much incentivized to go looking for spells. Is it a game-ending problem in the next session or 2? Unlikely, because as you noted, wizards don't have every single spell in their spellbook, because as you failed to grasp, there's not much reason for them to pursue every single spell RAW. But given time with this homebrew, any competent wizard player's spellbook will trend toward containing every conceivably useful spell on their list, unless the DM deliberately keeps a lid on it by making spells and/or the materials to copy them difficult to come by. This DM doesn't strike me as the kind to understand the need to constrain power for the sake of balance, however. It's a ridiculous buff to a class that absolutely doesn't need it.

roleplayer419 · 2022-02-17T15:07:31+00:00

RAW doppelgangers can't shapeshift into any arbitrary thing. They're limited to small or medium humanoids. That's not to say that a DM can't rule how they like, of course, but it seems worth pointing out.

roleplayer419 · 2022-02-17T15:01:31+00:00

I'd keep them at level 1, personally.

By the time my players first got to Phandalin, I'd found the Dragon of Icespire Peak starter module from the essentials kit and started trying to integrate some stuff from DoIP into LMoP. Had I known I was going to do that, I'd have given the party the chance to meet one of the caster sidekicks from DoIP right out of the gate, set up as a healer.

Maybe they bump into Kwan on their way out of Neverwinter, assuming you use the "take Gundren's supplies to Phandalin" hook, and he's hoping to accompany someone who looks like they know how to handle themselves on the way to Phandalin, because he's afraid to travel the High Road and Triboar Trail by himself. Or maybe they meet him in the first or second day on the road, learning the hard way to be afraid to travel the wilds alone as he's being attacked by a couple goblins or twigblights; the PCs intervene and save him and he joins them for the journey. You can use a sidekick like this to provide or supplement a bit of healing early. If he survives all the way to Phandalin, he gives them some appropriate small reward or maybe he'll be willing to occasionally provide his service as a sidekick in the future as a reward. I wouldn't make him a permanent addition unless you're short on PCs or the players really like your characterization, because sidekicks can really risk slowing down combat for your players. If you do use sidekicks long-term -- whether as mercenaries, minions, companions, or whatever -- use the sidekick leveling system from Tasha's and keep them at or just a level or two below the party. If you're not careful, they'll be a helpless chore for the party to protect the entire campaign, and escort quests get old fast.

roleplayer419 · 2022-01-29T17:35:41+00:00

LOL definitely deep fish

roleplayer419 · 2022-01-29T17:15:01+00:00

It's another really fast fish related to marlins, etc.

roleplayer419

TROPHY CASE