Honestly, the dice I featured in the video would be PERFECT for a Twilight Cleric… Thanks so much to OnlyCrits for sponsoring this video! Visit www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK at checkout! www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike
Honestly, the lack of thematic coherence probably is what tipped the scales on how Twilight Cleric gets perceived. People complained about Hexblade for a long time (some still do) being too strong, but it was at least consistent on its warrior-warlock theming. Twilight is a strong subclass that doesn't seem to care it's called the Twilight domain except superficially
Hexblade is more complained for it's one level dip than a pure hexblade build. It's a very powerful one level dip for so many classes. However there is also another angle, it kinda makes pact of the blade a hexblade exclusive. Let's just say there's a reason why fjord isn't a GOOlock.
@@falionna3587this, exactly, say it a thousand times more! It breaks from the usual style of patrons to be a clearly superior power boost for gish-style play. The "my sword IS my patron" idea could *always* have been done with the pact of the blade thematically, it never had to be its own subclass. I turn a lot of its abilities into eldritch invocations for other blade pact warlocks (and roll the "attack with Charisma" into the +1/2/3 EIs). So... sorry hexblade, you can only be irrelevant.
I never liked Hexblade’s flavor in that you could really choose any kind of patron for the Hexblade since the actual patron is very vague. I also agree on Twilight Domain. Why does my twilight/night themed Cleric get heavy armor proficiency? And the ability to give someone advantage on initiative because “the night makes you vigilant”? What does that mean?
I honestly hate the flavor for the hexblade, because the patron is soooo specific but people keep doing it because it's mechanically powerful. Y'know how the designers intentionally made fireball overpowered, because fireballs are iconic and they wanted players to take fireball? Well warlocks are the opposite. The most iconic patrons are in the PHB (fiend, archfey, GOO), but all those _suck_ and as a result it's difficult to justify playing any of the most iconic subclasses. Meanwhile the most popular warlock patron is.... a sentient magic weapon, infused with magic from the Shadowfell and maybe controlled by the Raven Queen. That is _comically_ specific. Nobody takes Hexblade because the idea of a talking sword is the most interesting patron; it's always because of the mechanics. For a class with such good flavor that's really disappointing imo.
My DM always makes me a homebrew subclass for all my characters - I don’t think a single character I’ve had with him had an official subclass. He always makes me one to fit my backstory and what I want for the character. I don’t ask him to do this! He just loves making homebrew and knows I love using his homebrew.
I like the "your subclass should be based on your Character and how he does the thing." I think it weird for a mage to all of sudden be like "I am a Necromancer now.. rawr"
There’s a few other Critical Role subclasses like Echo Knight, Graviturgy, etc on dnd beyond too Also - hearing you go over Twilight Cleric makes me want a series breaking down all the subclasses
Those are specifically in collaboration with WotC, they're from the Wildemount book which is as first party as anything else. They just partnered with CR to produce it because they're popular and also that meant Matt Mercer had already done a bunch of work on the setting for free Edit: the Paladin Oath, meanwhile, didn't release until they put out Taldorei Reborn, I believe, which is only a CR project, not WotC affiliation
If my players are fighting humanoids or other "sentient" beings and one starts to fly, the next one on initiative uses a free action to yell "FLYER!" and the rest concentrate on that character if able. It's caused them to plan ahead to protect/distract from the flyer(s) and promotes tactical thinking. Matt does it well - a party's enemies aren't dumb. And, dispell magic has a pretty long range.
As funny as that is, dispel magic isn't very relevant in this context. The twilight domain cleric's flight isn't a spell, so dispel magic can't do dick diddly against it. It also doesn't require concentration, so focusing on the flyer won't matter until they reach 0 hp and drop, and that's damage you're not dealing to the people massacring you in your faces. That is a tactically ill advised move.
@@The_Crimson_Witch While it is not a spell, it is a magical effect. This means dispel magic can target it. But it only ends spells? That seems strange.
I know a few folks that really crap on the Twilight Domain Cleric for being "too powerful" but I think the sleeper star of Tasha's is actually the Peace Domain. Being able to stack emboldening bond with bless at such a low level just really mucks with balance in a very, very obvious way (but it's so, so satisfying to play).
Yeah, Peace is also really good. Both are clearly ahead of the pack. I think Peace is slightly "better" but I also think it causes game play to slow way down; especially if stacked with Bless spell which is common. The only advantage of the Peace and Twilight domains is at least they help the whole party so it's not just one broken person outshining everyone.
To clarify why I don't care for Peace and Twilight, I just see them as being overpowered. In general, I tend to not like a subclass that is so powerful that *everyone* wants to take it.
@Heritage367 I'm less bothered by it because I enjoy having over powered characters and will use magic items to level out the party's power, however I understand that isn't universal. Twilight Cleric's strongest ability is spamming temp hp, so if you want to rebalance it I'd say you can either A) limit the twilight shroud benefits to once per turn Or B) have it be 1d6+half their cleric level Or C) 1d6+PB Or any combination of the above.
For a while, I thought that the magic in D&D 5e was BECAUSE of the subclasses and not because of magic weapons. So when people have a powerful subclass, I tend to reward the other players with magic items to balance things out. The problem comes when that person is an unarmed monk.
Ideas for cool magic items for an unarmed monk (because i love monks): Eldritch Claw Tattoo, Blood Fury Tattoo, any of the belts of giant strength, if you have casters in the party why not let the monk cast Haste on himself with ring of spell storing, bracers of defense, bracer of flying daggers, and the granddaddy of them all if you want your monk to be god: Gloves of Soul Catching.
Initiative order does matter in the grand scheme of things. If the initiative order starts with a crowd control or a save or suck spell from your spellcasters, the fight becomes significantly easier.
I completely agree with you, but I think the point he was making was: "What does going first have to do with evening or starlight? How is this a thing for Twilight domain?"
I’m about to start Curse of Strahd with players that have all played DnD for less than a year. I told them they could use any subclass in the player’s handbook not to overwhelm my players or myself. The caveat was that if any player had a idea for a character that suited another book’s subclass I’d be more than happy to allow it. In pracrice the barbarian who was powered by ancestors and wanted to be a tank got the ancestral guardian subclass, while the cleric agonized over which PHB domain he wanted, eventually asking for forge domain which we allowed as well or course. I think by the end of this campaign and video I’ll open the door to the rest of the subclasses!
Good luck! I started Curse of Strahd as a newer DM (about a year experience) and it was a rough start…I think I have my feet under time now, but it took a while. There’s just a lot in CoS and it needed a lot of tweaking to make it interesting for my table.
I've never felt more connected to you than when you talked about how your monsters never get higher than a 5 for initiative. That's also been my life as a dm for the last couple of years lol
Meanwhile my first ever combat I ran as a DM saw a pack of three Deinonychus collectively roll 20 on Initiative and nearly kill the poor Bard who couldn't get to the back line fast enough. Though she was a Valor Bard so let's be honest this probably would have happened anyway.
I think this feeling comes from the fact that there are a lot of player facing spells and abilities that grants bonuses/advantage on initiative but almost no comparable monster abilities so initiative tends to trend in the party’s favor.
I started scripting my initiative when I build a combat so groups usually go on 20, 15, 10, 5. I had too many combats that were over before they started, or just had all the monsters clumped together making combat flow horribly. This way, I can guarantee some of the monsters get to go, and they are interspersed between player actions so everything flows better. I was hesitant to do it at first because I didn't want to feel "too scripted", but it really makes the game more fun for everyone.
@@shweppy That’s a good idea. I do think I might miss that element of randomness but I’ve definitely seen the same problems you’re talking about. I might give that a try
Its as simple for me as saying the twilight domain aura is concentration. There's precedent for that (trickery domain) and is sufficiently powerful to warrant it.
I’m leaving 5e behind mostly so don’t really have to worry about this, but my take has basically always been that, even though some subclasses are a little unbalanced, they aren’t SO unbalanced that they’ll break my game. Another way to do it is “hey, this is known as a super powerful subclass. If it becomes a problem, we’ll need to talk about a few tweaks.” Or just ban it. That works too, but is generally less well received.
Not brought up in the video, but did you know the Twilgiht Cleric aura also causes the area around them to be Low Light and thus one of the popular power builds is Twilight Cleric/Gloomstalker for self-perpetuating invisibility?
Twilight clerics are literally extra-blessed clerics of one particular deity - rare and revered among clerics. If you want to be one, which has happened only once, you've got the weight of the world on your shoulders.
As for thematic, the advantage on initiative most likely is based on the lore side of deities the twilight domain would work for, such as Selune and Sehanine, who deal heavily in divination, giving visions to their followers as they are often seen as the seers in the realms, the flight also obviously revolves around the idea of these deities flying through the night sky, the moon or the luminous cloud respectively. If you are playing a cleric and not worshiping either Sehanine or Selune, I could see an issue with the thematic of Twilight Cleric, but that is more the fault of how 5e handles domains and deities. (at least in Forgotten Realms. I am a FR lore nerd and know little to nothing of the other settings)
Honestly I appreciate these videos because they serve as healthy examples of what other tables and groups very different than mine look like. I like to run heavy curated games but that is active work that I put into it. My main group are all players that enjoy that aspect of the world and are actually interested in crunchy dungeon crawls and races with very defined fantasies. I also run beginner games for strangers on Roll20 as a way to give new players a solid introduction to the hobby and making sure they all get equal chances to shine regardless of how much optimization they are looking for/accidentally stumble into. On another note from the video I am actually kind of worried about what impact DnD Beyond is having on tables and new players. It has gotten to the point that I'm considering just not allowing it as I end up with players that seem to understand their character's mechanics less from not having actually filled out a character sheet. That and the amount of content out there of questionable balance is sometimes giving echoes of when new players showing up with something they took off dndwiki
Never thought about banning subclasses, but maybe because I'm quite new as a DM and still learning how to balance and see what are my strong points as a DM. So for the time being everything is open. But the idea of tweaking something in order for everyone having fun is good. I'll keep that in mind.
A big thing is about the players at your table. If you are playing a casual game, it'll 99% of the time be fine. Some players aren't like that though, and if you've ever played with a hardcore min-maxer, the power difference between characters can be quite extreme.
@@andrewshandle I understand what you mean, and I agree. But I need to, also, learn how to DMing and for that I need to fail on my own (although all tips are appreciated).
Great video! ... yeah, the power creep in recent products has always concerned me. I'm in the camp that believes that all subclasses for a particular class should be relatively balanced. It usually becomes a problem when one or more choices becomes so blatantly more powerful than other selections, that a player would be considered foolish to pick anything but the more optimal choice. Twilight cleric is a perfect example (though not the only example). In my campaign, I initially banned the Twilight domain cleric for balance reasons... I'd noticed in other campaigns that they were often chosen over other domains, and when I observed one of our most experienced players arguing with a newer player that Twilight domain was the best and therefore the only choice they should make, I had to take action. At first, I banned it, so I could study a better solution. Finally, I brought back a VARIANT of the subclass... it's been nerfed considerably, but this actually makes it only slightly more potent than many other core domains. 1.) Twilight clerics lose the 300 ft. darkvision... instead, they can cast the Darkvision spell once per long rest without using a spell slot ... They can cast it on themselves or on another willing target if they choose. Darkvision is also added to their list of known spells and is always prepared, so they can grant darkvision to others if they choose but it will cost them a spell slot. Since the spell lasts 8 hours, it has roughly the same effect in game. (**it should be noted that I do use dim light and darkness quite a bit in my DM strategies, and players learn to carry light sources. I have outlawed darkvision for most races and only grant it to races that predominantly live underground, i.e., dwarves, goblins, orcs, etc. So nerfing darkvision is definitely in my campaign's best interest.**) 2.) Twilight clerics lose proficiency in heavy armor. There is nothing in the Twilight domain description that leads me to any imagery imagining plate mail or heavy duty armor training. Shields and medium armor should be sufficient. 3.) Twilight Sanctuary ... when a cleric uses their channel divinity to create a sphere of twilight, it gives everyone in the area (friend or foe) either 1d6 + cleric level temp hit points, or if they have the charmed and/or frightened condition, instead it ends those effects immediately. That's it... The target doesn't need to stay near the cleric afterward, and it has no consecutive effects after that first round of effect. It doesn't refresh every round. If you want to do it again later in combat, you need to expend another use of Channel Divinity. And finally, 4.) Steps of Night is treated as the Fly spell... It grants a flight speed of 60 ft and requires concentration. It can only be cast on yourself and cannot be upcast. In the event that you are no longer in dim light or darkness, the spell ends, and you receive the benefit of a Feather Fall spell on yourself until the end of your next turn. This ability can only be used once per short rest. (p.s. Also want to point out that Leomund's Tiny Hut seems like a strange (i.e., stupid) choice for a 3rd-level domain spell. It has nothing to do with anything regarding night, day, or starlight, not to mention it's horrifically overpowered as it is, and its inclusion as a ritual spell means an end to any nighttime encounters... you know, when the Twilight clerics' powers work best? Dumb, dumb idea...)
I feel like those changes are bit too much and turn it to really weak subclass. I would just give them the same darkvision that gloomstalker gets (aka 60ft or +30ft if you already had darkvision), and just make CD to use their reaction to give someone (including themself) temp hp when they end their turn in the aura, so you can only do it to one person per round. The fly I think is fine, people tend to over react on flying a lot in general, it's not really that big of a deal if you are even half-decent at encounter building. Also, if you actually read the description of the Twilight domain, Leomund's Tiny Hunt makes perfect sense. Here is a quote. 'Clerics who serve these deities bring comfort to those who seek rest and protect them...' that's exactly what Leomund's Tiny Hut does.
I've never had a player not check if a subclass was ok before we start playing, none of them have assumed all official ones are ok. On the other hand, I haven't ever banned a subclass though... I have advised against some though because of what campaign we will be running (aka they won't really benefit or get to use the abilities). But then again... my gaming group are very much for communicating outside of the play at table.
I currently have in my rules that you’re allowed to freely pick from PHB and XGE, because those are the books I have. Anything else is allowed only after I get a chance to read it and manually approve it, so that I can know what your character can do before you do it, so I’m not sitting there during the game looking up an ability I’ve never heard of before that bypasses an entire chunk of the game.
I think your point about how you'd handle the twilight cleric brings up the fundamental flaw with these sub-classes. As a system 5e requires so much work out of the DM anyway, so needing to adapt encounters because players are too powerful creates an extra amount of work. I think it's reasonable, especially if running official adventures, to ban subclasses for this reason. Another reason for banning certain subclasses is having an unhealthy gameplay tendencies. I personally ban the Peace domain because it's mechanically powerful but also drags down gameplay with all the extra dice it makes. Certain DMs ban spells like Conjure Animals for similar reasons, just drags out combat to much. I think banning to increase fun and create less work for the DM is the right approach.
Incredibly based take. Yeah anything disrupts the flow of the game or puts an extra burden on the DM is a problem. It's why I usually suggest for new DMs to have their players just stick with the PHB when making characters and not allow multi-classing. That way it'll be easier to run the game, create encounters and also doesn't require the pre-written adventures to be adjusted.
I ban a subclass whenever I have a problem with its design that I can't work with and haven't found a way to fix yet. Sometimes this happens due to balance issues, but usually this happens because of the fun factor, or rather the lack thereof. For instance, in one of my earlier campaigns, I had a player who wanted to be a Wild Magic Sorcerer. They'd heard some funny stories about it on Reddit, and wanted to try it out. Fast forward about 20 sessions, and they've still never had a Wild Magic Surge. Once I realized that they were basically playing without a subclass, I asked them if they wanted to change their Origin, and they gave an enthusiastic yes. They made the switch, and then I banned Wild Magic until I'd had a chance to redesign it. I did some homebrew, and when the next campaign started, I presented my changes to that same player, and they decided to try them out. They had a lot more fun this time. Great discussion, Mike!
Mike: talking about people banning twilight domain. My DM: encouraging me to take it for my 2 levels of cleric because it made story sense and also its op. You can really tell that a lot of the other players are power gamers, huh
The biggest problem for your advice for DM's "rising to the challenge" is that you need to have experience on how to tweak your monsters and tactics to do that, which means you have to have already DMed for a while. For a new DM this is yet another hurdle on top of everything else they have to prepare for, and it's already hard enough to find people willing to try DMing for a first time with 5E as is.
this is a valid point. my personal experience though is that its always easier to make something stronger than it is to make something weaker, the stronger your players are the more wiggle room you have as a DM to challenge without outright killing them.
I never ban anything outright at my table. I’ve found the best way to handle content a player is interested in that I’m not familiar with is to just say I need to read the subclass and understand before they play it. It’s worked out great for me and my players are having fun.
I am soon(-ish) gonna be running my first campaign, and I am gonna be running it for players who has basically never played before. Bet your booty I am gonna ban the necromancer subclass for wizard, and potentially any other that is made with the explicit idea of controlling a handful of minions. Not because of balance or anything, simply because all of us are new, and I know enough that many creatures in the hand of someone inexperienced is gonna slow everything to a crawl as soon as combat starts
I think it's interesting that Twilight Cleric is the one that gets the bans from Tasha's when Peace is *so* much worse. I both "ban" subclasses -- mostly "hey, I'm allowing stuff from the PHB and most things from Xanathar's, if you want a Tasha's, Mercer, or Kobold Press subclass it's case-by-case" -- and rewrite them. I use the standard fix of taking "attack with Charisma" off hexblade and put it on Pact of the Blade both for opening up melee as an option for other warlock subclasses, and for making multiclass hexblade shenanigans for paladin/bard require a 3-level dip, not a 1-level one. I also think there are some subclasses I would allow, but taking them removes your option to multiclass, since the issue isn't so much that the subclass is powerful, but that their level 1-3 features are both strong and scale very well. Level 1-3 subclass features that key off proficiency bonus often make extremely strong multiclass dips, and those are the ones where I'd either alter the subclass, or not allow it as a dip/not allow multiclassing with it.
As far as I am concerned, the best reason to ban the Twilight Cleric is that I just don't find the concept of the Twilight Domain compelling enough or plausible enough to account for it in the cosmology of my setting. Twilight is such a fleeting, ephemeral condition that the whole concept of it being a separate Domain just doesn't make sense. And if I did allow such a concept, it certainly wouldn't operate the way Hasbro's authors have conceived of it. This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say, as I have said many, many times over, that the biggest problem with D&D is that Hasbro ties too much of what really should be considered setting-dependent to the core rules. The idea of the Twilight Domain has ramifications for the fundamental cosmology/theology of the setting.
I don’t ban things because my group, like many groups, don’t actually get to play that often. Why would I try to cut their options short when it’s hard enough to get a game scheduled? It’s a game! If it ends up not being fun, then I’ll change things. But I’m not clairvoyant so I can’t with 100% certainty say that one option will be that sticky cog in the engine of fun. Plus, I want to experience as much of the game firsthand as I possibly can. Makes me a better DM.
My world didn’t have warforged. A player wanted to be a warforged. Woops look at that I just created a really cool reason why warforged are starting to exist. And it’s one of the narrative pieces I’m now most proud of! Cooperative storytelling, man this game is dope.
06:23 OK, historically I've only really enjoyed The Coimmand Zone's mid-roll ads, but this one was great! 😃 My LoVM kickstarter dice have been sitting alone for TOO LONG!
11:25 We're talking about an improv role playing, table top game, between friends Where no rule is truly ever absolute Communicating healthily will always be the right answer
been sorta having problems with the hexblade in my group. my solution was to lean into the power creep and start randomly throwing hexblades at the party in a highlander sort of way. everything the players have i have too.
The player of the Twilight cleric in my last game got used to hearing me frequently say, "Look at me, I'm a Twilight cleric, I break the game." But we all understood it was a joke. Mostly I said it so she would feel badass when she did something cool. Nobody else at the table seemed to be overshadowed, and that's what I was really looking for. I find it way more fun for the table when I am saying yes to the players instead of no.
I've just started a new xampaign as a twilight cleric. Our party includes a bear totem barbarian who's pretty much unkillable when raging while sanctuary is up. DM is suspiciously chill about it... and that scares me more than anything 😳
The twilight domain cleric also gets heavy armour proficiency, which certainly isnt uncommon for cleric subcalsses, but it is something of a dividing line and its funny it gets to cross that line given literally everything else it has going on.
Friendly reminder that creatures with darkvision, while being able to see in non-magical darkness, have disadvantage on the perception checks they make in darkness, since the darkness is treated as dim light and dim light has the same effect as lightly obscured area "In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight." I know it doesn't fix the darkness issue, but I feel like this is probably overlooked a lot. Edit as a disclaimer: I recently started playing my first cleric, and he is twilight domain. Not because I think twilight is strong, which I do, but because I like the idea of balancing between ideals and finding a true neutrality. So my character is a servant of the god of death, but not in an evil way. Death is neither evil, nor good. Death simply is. There are times when he must introduce others to death and times he must keep others from death. Honestly, not too sure where I want to fully go with the character, because I'm not great at making compelling characters - also he has no background whatsoever. But I hope to flesh him out some more and find out eventually.
I play a twilight cleric too and I really like this aspect, even though I think my take is slightly different than yours (I usually tend to work from what is said in the books, and not following them at the letter) Twilight clerics are called like this because they are watchers, guardians that appears at twilight, when night comes, and they are tasked to make the night easier for everyone. To make sure the sleep of the people is not disturbed. Just like with you, death is just a part of things and is closer to sleep than most people accept. Their motto is "Sleep is the sibling of Death" (an ancient Greek saying: to hypnos delphi thanatou esti), so they are tasked with the sleep of the Dead. They see Undeads as victims of bad necromancy, because they were not asked to come back, so a part of their soul was ripped in the process. I play a twilight cleric in Curse of Strahd, Aeres Achelepios Orgé. He was named Achelepios (and goes by that name) by his mother, a courtesan, who saw in him a healer, were his father, a renowned soldier saw in him a warrior. He never had a place in his parent's love for each other (both of them never really knew what parenting was), so he fought since the age of 16 in war as a simple soldier (multiclass, one level in fighter, protection style, as I imagine him as an hoplite, with the lance and shield). When he was around 20, he met a prostitute with a baby saying that it was his (it may or may not be his biological child, but he does not care), and he went away from the battlefield. He was in a town trying to win food for his baby and wife, in order for her not to make her old job again, when he met a young 14 years old girl while he was holding his crying daughter. The baby had not been sleeping for a few days, which was worrying. The young girl (an oath of the ancient paladin, champion of Malikki, another party member) told him to go and see the gods, so he went to pray for Hypnos, Godess of sleep and dreams, and succeeded in his prayers. To thanks the goddess, he swore to serve her, and trained the young girl as thanks for her guidance. He serves as a guardian in the night, trying to feed his 6 years old daughter, Irene Eldathé Orgé, just like his parents named him after gods they respected, he named her after a God whose ideals he wants her to live by. Human variant, Sentinel feat, Skill expert feat (perception), twilight cleric (3) /fighter (1). His arc is that he is indeed very powerful and serves a very powerful goddess (she could be a servant of the Matron of raven, an enemy of Orcus), but with his very whole 7 charisma, he completely lacks confidence, and though he respects his goddess, he does not see her in her whole power. His arc is to gain assurance in his powers and to convince himself that he can and have to help the people of Barovia, following his order's code.
I personally don't find the argument that a class/subclass/race/spell isn't overpowered because the DM can alter the monster by giving the owlbear wings and a fly speed for example to be a good argument. When determining the strength of a feature in a system it has to be done within the system, not by someone or something that can change anything on a whim.
I agree. If a class is so strong that is forces the DM to have to do extra work to alter the monsters, I think we've gone past what is reasonable. 5e offloads so much work onto the DM anyway, that adding even more is pretty tough sell.
On the twilight cleric's thematic accuracy I feel it's supposed to be less about the starry sky and more about keeping people safe in the dark. I hadn't realised there was so much negative until I started watching more d+d youtubers. The only time one of my players played this sub-class it both fit the character concept well (a university chaplain trying to keep as many students alive as possible when the university got separated from reality) and was helpful to the way the party worked together without hogging the spotlight or messing up the plans I had. I've never banned a sub-class for power reasons, but I do ban wild magic for being a bit silly and slowing games down, and some of the ones that mention other planes when those planes aren't relevant to the setting.
As a big optimization nerd, I hold the unpopular opinion that twilight cleric is good because it's a cleric, and the subclass is the best cleric subclass, but it definitely isn't so much better than the other subclasses that it's super impactful. Trent monks temple has a really good video on the topic too
I agree for me it feels like that half the cleric subclasses are really strong and even the weaker once all give you good options and at the end of the day you still play a cleric.
I value RPGBot and their character optimisation articles. They provide invaluable tips for tweaking some of the more stronger classes and bringing that power curve down a little bit. Alternatively, they also help with suggestions for bumping up weaker subclasses too and making them more viable - berserker barbarian and the elemental monk as two prime examples. I don't want to outright ban subclasses, but I do offer that if they want to play a particularly strong or unfun (for me as a DM) subclass, then if they're really set on playing that, then we look at the class together and those aforementioned articles, and work a way out together so we both benefit.
I'm seriously impressed that you ran a game with 4 druids. That's like 32 summons, that seems like absolutely game breaking. And not even in a power way, but just the sheer amounts of rolls seems very exhausting. After playing a very fun campaign with a moon druid barbarian and a circle of spores druid I can confidently say that I absolutely ban certain spells and subclasses. Not because of power, but because of gameplay. Moondruid beartotem barbarians have so much HP that you have to design your encounters around them, which tends to make for super deadly enemies the rest of your party can't handle. So the moondruid barbarian shines and the rest is pretty much irrelevant. I've banned this multiclass combination after the campaign ended. Conjure animals was also used and slowed the game down, even though my wonderful boyfriend rolled any attack during the other players turns. I've changed the spell to a maximum of two summons (after the campaign) because it just slows down the game so much.
Battlemaster archer with trip attack is such an easy counter to flying PC's, with most sources of flight that do not include hover being knocked prone or having your speed reduced to 0 means falling. I have a barb with winged boots and the polearm master and sentinel feats who has been known to do such things in aerial combat, and he has taken more damage in a single hit from falling than anything else.
Good thing you are bad ass DM, yet it is still hard to do good adjustment To be really honest, it really pisses me off that DMs might have to do WotC's job on top of other stuffs DMs have to do. Insane thing is, for Twilight, UA wasnt this broken. Lastly, oh hi doggie.
5E Subclasses remind me of the over-proliferation of kits in 2E. The whole thing feels like planned obscelence to me. Eventually there is so much junk, you just need a new edition just to clean things up.
Any and all official and UA material is good at my table. I used to also say no homebrew, but ive grown to say homebrew is fine if you bring it to me first and agree to let me modify it if i deem it too powerful or too weak (this point will come up later in this paragraph). as a DM i want my players to feel powerful, and for them to fight powerful foes. at my table ive had issues with players intentionally making weak characters (to the detriment of the others in the party if im being honest) so when someone shows up with a strong character im actually relieved, i dont have to worry about them dying easily. one of my favorite parts of being a DM is creating memorable and fun encounters, the stronger my players are the more opportunities i have for powerful foes to throw against them. i understand if a DM would want to ban something at their table for lore reasons, but mechanically i would advocate for reflavoring it to fit your campaign more than outright banning it. for example if giants dont exist in your setting you can let a rune night's runes be magic sigils, psionics can be other forms of magic, etc. (also can we please get over the "guns dont belong in muh fantasy"? ignoring historical annecdotes some players like being that artificer/inventor with the impactful invention). wow i really went on a few tangents here huh?
Open, honest and respectful communication; who do you think I am, a decent person? Lol Nah, encouraging comms is always good, we need more reminders than we would like to admit.
I think a lof of people overestimate how powerful darkvision is. You can easily have stuff sneak up on players or the like despite them having darkvision.
My biggest issue with Twilight is the aura temp-HP negating the value of most other sources of temp HP. It's not a player-personality-defect to feel crappy when a cool feature of your character or spell gets negated. Communication is part of a solution, but if we're not banning or nerfing, the gist of that communication is "we have a Twilight cleric, so a lot of things that were good are now redundant." Edit: redundant or at best situationally useful
Balance seems like such a silly thing to ever worry about. I usually set encounters by figuring the average damage my players can deal a turn and picking 3 types of enemy. Goons - can be killed in under 2 rounds by one character. They are fodder Sargents - they can be killed in 3 - 5 rounds by one character. I usually put one every 3 - 6 goons. Commanders - these are the big bosses and are designed to soak damage and use bonus actions to make the lesser enemies perform tasks. You get one strong one or two moderately strong ones per encounter. Now I start with double the omayer count in goons and add an appropriate number of Sargents and a Commander. If the omayer mop the floor I bring in more sets of goons with Sargents until the players are bloodied when I make the enemy retreat. I also find if I put a timer on combat it artificially inflates the drama and the players don't care if they stomp the enemy easily. Every fight there is a reason the players can't lock themselves in a room and drop a healing spirit and such. They are trying to free a captive that is being dragged away, they have a profane ritual that is being cast over 5 rounds and need to disrupt it, their main target is escaping and these enemies are jsut to slow them down. Balance is all about giving the players a fun experience, don't burn yourself out over something as silly as the players getting fly speed or some other broken combat ability, it likely won't help them to save the wounded soldier bleeding out in one of 4 rooms on the other side of an enemy infested ballroom and they have no idea which one.
I find the newer the subclass, the more niche the fantasy. It's kinda inevitable, the most universal and coherent fantasies get used first. Like Mike said, it's not really clear what some of the twilight cleric's abilities have to do with its theme. That's why I most often say no to subclasses, it's when they don't fit the tone or setting of my game.
I'm not fully agreeing with your game balance argument. Little story on this one. When I was new to 5e I played in a fresh group as a Moon Druid. So no one of us knew that in a campaign designed for levels 1-5 (maybe 6) Moon Druids tend to be really strong (Temp HP, very good combat forms for those levels at CR1 and so on). After a few sessions on level 2 and 3 I talked to the DM, whether we shouldn't add a step in the CR levels for a slower progession. But he had the same arugment as you did. I just up the challange. That worked for my character. But giving me a challange really made all others who had to wait for level 5 for stuff like their Extra attack struggle. The blanace problem is not player versus GM it is and always has been among the player group. And strong abilities are not the real problem. It is abilities that let you outshine other players regulary. In particular when those abilities let you shine in a field that other classes feel to be rightfully theirs (Moon Druid Full Caster and outclasses the Barbarian in meele below level 5 ...). Just banning the subclass is not the best soloution in my opinion though. When I DM'ed later I gave Moon Druids a better Wildshape progression table. One that also adresses the long gap between level 6 (CR2) and 10 (Elemental transformation). That way they can still be a cool Moon Druid but not be a Dire Wolf (or similar) at level 2. On the topic of 3rd party content on D&D Beyond there is also the Blood Hunter Class and the Gunslinger Subclass for Fighter (both Critical Role content as well).
I only banned some subclasses because the setting I'm running has a hard stance on undead. It's one that simply stands as a "hey guys before you start thinking about characters, undead are pure evil in this setting and I'm going with general good party".
There is one buff I give to Monks whenever I DM. Step of the Wind no longer costs a Ki Point. I feel that if a Rogue can Dash and Disengage for a bonus action only, I don't see why it should cost the Monk a Ki Point and a bonus action to do essentially the same thing. I know that the Monk can Dodge as well, but I don't think that alone justifies costing a Ki Point.
If a DM is running a published adventure, banning one subclass that isn't all that thematically "correct" anyway is a lot easier than rebalancing every encounter in the book.
I altered Twilight Sanctuary in my campaign: the temp HP happens ONCE on activation, scales with Wis rather than having a d6, and gets the charm/fear negation once per person on activation. And it's still *very* strong.
I personally as a DM am also not a fan of banning official stuff in DnD, especially not for being too powerful. After all, DnD is a power fantasy for the players. I even try to tailor my encounters so that my players can actually use the abilities they have access to. Also, I have a 50-page long document in which I even detail buffs to any subclass (and even a few for some classes) I felt was mechanically weaker than the others, so as to open up more doors and ways to play different types of characters, without my players feeling they made a mistake choosing a specific type of fantasy they wanted to explore. So if one is really that pressed by a certain subclass like the Twighlight Domain Cleric, how about instead of banning the subclass altogether either nerf the subclass in some way (I personally wouldn't do that), like say they have to use their reaction to grant the temp HP from their Channel Divinity, which would lead to them having to expend some resources of their action economy, or step up your game, as Mike suggests. Play your villains smarter. Have your monsters notice that the party is constantly running back to their Cleric, even a below-average intelligence monster should be able to realize that it is probably smart to target the Cleric, even more than it usually is. As long as you don't have them do that immediately, but have them realize what is happening two or three rounds in, you're good. If you are in a dungeon, have one of the monsters flee and tell the others to target the Cleric specifically. Be creative, be smart, be a Dungeon Master. By banning a Class, Race, or Subclass from the get-go, you really run the risk of snuffing out the excitement of your players. (Unless you want to limit choice to make it easier for newer players to get into the game, that's fine I'd say)
I recently started playing 5e with a new group when I used to play 3.5. Imagine my surprise when I the elf fighter think I’ll be the only one with dark vision since there are no dwarves but literally everyone has it one way or another and they are playing races not in the book I own. My fighter feels out classed and I kinda feel like I let my character down by not knowing enough about other options to maximize his usefulness. It’s weird for me to think this way because the role play was always more important to me in 3.5 anyway but I can’t really play my fighter as someone who is a bit cocky at being the best fighter in his elven tribe even if they were all focused on Magic when he doesn’t seem to be the fighter of the group if that makes sense. Like sorry cool elven fighter I did not realize bugbear barbarian or stone genasi clerics were going to be here beside you 😅.
Just a slight correction, Oath of the Open Sea isn't the only non-WOTC subclass on DNDbeyond. They also have the Way of the Cobalt Soul Monk and Gunslinger Fighter
Gunslinger is on DM’s Guild so that makes some sense (it’s technically owned by WotC, like the blood hunter), but I didn’t realize the Cobalt Soul was also on D&D Beyond!
i didn't realize twilight domain was op lol. now i get how i terrify my partner (he usually prefers to dm) with characters that are accidentally overpowered but i just thought were cool thematically
Haha I really should have used my patron powers to scream "Hexblade" every hour on the leadup to this video. 😋 Would love to have seen it addressed, since it leans so much more to the "unfair for other players / ability jealousy" aspect. They have lots of great abilities and PoB warlock wants but they tie them to that one patron... who has no thematic fun that that can't just be RPd in for a regular blade pact! But anyway, great video as ever Mike. I think from your conclusion, it really does depend (as ever) if you think these particular abilities will interact badly with the challenges you specifically want to set. Which is my usual rule (besides setting-appropriateness) for deciding if something should be banned from a particular campaign.
I would say at the 3-minute mark, I'm a DM who is not actually afraid to cut or forbid races, subclasses, and classes; however, I also wouldn't be anywhere close to offended or considered a red flag if somebody had made a character using anything in the PHB, Tasha's, or xanathars, without asking me. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume those are on the table unless they've been explicitly taken off. Now, if I have taken them off the table, I expect it would be a red flag if somebody tried to argue that with me, but it wouldn't be a red flag if they just assumed IMO
I don't mind subclasses being OP, but I'm almost always a player. The one time I DM'd, my reasonably-strong party got 3/4 of the way through Lost Mines and then none of them rolled higher than a 12 on Venomfang and they all got eaten, so my perspective on that side of the screen is... limited. Hoping to run again soon, just as soon as I can finalise the last dungeon and find the time/energy to run the thing. From my perspective, I don't really mind my comrades being OP. If my friends are deleting the bad guys then I'm cool with that. What I _do_ have a problem with is subclasses that are just better versions of extant subclasses. Take, for example, the Eldritch Knight. Meant to be a standard Gish build that leans more on the stabbing than the casting, it is worse at being a Gish than basically every other Gish option. It's a quarter-caster, meaning its spells cap out at Lv.4, so it's not even all that good at the magic thing. I made an arguably superior Gish build with a _single-class Sorcerer_ once. And there's no more perfect an example of EK being underwhelming than its shinier, newer brother from another class, Bladesinger. If you want to be a melee-focused spellcaster who runs off of INT and casts from the Wizard spell list... just be a Bladesinger. You'll have far more versatility, access to higher-level spells, more slots to use them with, and _better spells for fighting in melee._ Take, for example, Tenser's Transformation, which is a great spell for the discerning Muscle Mage, and completely and totally not available to EKs. Wizard in general is fairly guilty of stepping on the toes of other classes a _lot,_ I remember when the fandom's favourite punching bag was Loremaster, but in this case it feels a little more ridiculous.
Why is darkvision so impactful to DMs? In the games I've ran, it doesn't bug me that players can see what the cave I made looks like. If they couldn't, it'd be sad for everyone. And as the DM, I can always say "there's some magical inky void business going on that you can't see through" if I absolutely have to
Reporting from Twilight domain gameplay: Channel divinity is strong in cramped encounters at 2nd level yeah but I never used it again after 5th except outside of combat as a free Lesser Restoration to cure charmed since Spirit Guardians and Spirit Shroud have more bang for buck imo. I wasn't the only healer and I was more specced for tanking and 2nd dps. I flew about alot but only at night or in dungeons (since you can't fly in bright light) while most encounters happened in well-lit rooms or outdoors on the road. It functioned much more as it is named; "steps of the night" or whatever, it was a bonus movement option for when we were sneaking about or setting up an ambush, it just replaced climbing for like 40% of climbing situations. Cloak of the bat is a rare magic item with a similar function (one of many), at 6th level that seems reasonable as a subclass option, Tempest gets its cool rebuke move, Light gets to share their warding flares, personal, conditional, limited flight is only a bit stronger. Advantage on initiative is nice but weaker on its own than most other 1st level cleric subclass abilities. Darkvision. The first criticism of 5e. You would have thought people would have come up with solutions to the "problem" by now. Half your party already has darkvision on account of the tieflings, nobody has ever noticed that darkvision has a range on it so 300ft is functionally identical to 60ft. I never even had to use the ability in game, I think I mentioned it like 4 times the whole campaign. If you want to lean on darkness as the crutch that makes your encounters scary then here's your homebrew: Darkness is a light level akin to a moonless night, creatures with sensitive eyes can still operate by the light of stars. Caves have a new, darker light level: True Darkness, absolutely no light. Anyone who has ever gone caving knows this is true. Here darkvision does nothing or it gives you like 5 foot of dim light vision if it's of explicitly magical origin i.e. aasimar or tielfing or 10ft if you're a twilight cleric. There, never complain about this ever again. At the end of the day, clerics are one of the strongest 5e classes, their subclasses are going to feel overpowered too. If Twilight Sanctuary is too strong at 2nd level then ban paladins and moon druids for games that start before 5th-level. And I'm the guy who thinks Tasha's subclasses are mostly too OP, and I never noticed Twilight was one of those OP ones, didn't even register. Rune Knight? 100%. Bladesinger? You bet. Twilight? Thats just a thematically unusual cleric, nothing to see here.
I generally assume anything from Wizards is fair game. Other publishers, not so much because I don't have access to their books or time to read them all. Homebrew is straight out, especially the subclasses I homebrewed myself.
I was very surprised to see that this discussion wasn't regarding if the subclass fit into the lore of the world. That's basically the only reason I've banned things, I want everything to feel real in the world and some of the subclasses have specific things that don't fit.
I dipped into that a bit, but mainly didn’t dwell on it because it’s such a huge consideration in my video about banning classes, and didn’t want to repeat myself too much.
I play a Stars druid (we're currently at lvl 6) and so far in early stages, they seem broken. Chalice is basically a free Cure Wounds with a range like Healing Word. Having free Guiding Bolt is basically having free 1st spell slots. But I think it's not overpowered. Moon druids get to be brown bears at lvl 2, getting 30+ hp and a multiattack after all. You can't swap starry forms till 10th level, so until then, you have to think about which form might be best for the fight. Be support with Chalice or channel warlock and start blasting with an Archer/Guiding Bolt combo for a bit. If you make the wrong call or the tides change, it'll cost you a wild shape, which, depending on the table's play style, can be awful. I've found (with our group at least) that in the start, they're a bit of a glass cannon, but when the martial classes hit lvl 5 and get their extra attacks, you're not the only one doing chunks of damage each round. (Of course, I also have a DM that has a bit of a war gamer mindset and Will turn me into a pin cushion lol) Also you have other things to do with your action so you're less likely to throw around a Guiding Bolt. Maybe Dragon and Call Lightning might be a better combo for a fight. I will add that Chalice as made an interesting dynamic between my druid and our Knowledge cleric, who feels like an inadequate healer (the player and I don't have this issue; it's the characters) since my druid can heal so much more (when she decides to) compared to her. We're still in the early stages of their relationship (the two just don't hang out a lot during downtime) but it is an interesting way to have the abilities integrate with the characters.
"Initiative doesn't really matter": generally speaking, there's a case to be made for that. Look at a notorious combat in C3 for an exception to the rule. As to banning subclasses, I am more inclined to tweak class traits than I am to ban a subclass. If there's "too much" to tweak, though, then I may forbid it.
DnD presents a broad, generic version of a fantasy world. I don't hesitate to ban (and add) classes and subclasses to fit a particular campaign I'm running. Races/Speices/Ancestry/whatever are often severely limited, because those are explicitly other, strange, and unusual. It helps though, that my players mostly just want to play humans anyway. My goal is to set the tone for the world/campaign. That said, my bans are usually soft bans, so if a player wants to make a pitch for why/how something fits into the campaign, I'm happy to make adjustments.
I made a twilight domain cleric for a campaign I'm in because it was new and I liked the aesthetic--I did a bad job of actually reading it first. So it was a bit of a surprise when I realized how much of an advantage it has. On the bright side, the campaign is Icewind Dale, which seems to have a general distaste for the players' continued survival.
I've never been asked to ban subclasses, but at my current table the GM said we could only use feats or multiclassing, not both. He said this is because he could not handle keeping track of all the variations that would bring on board. To my frustration, the table voted to use feats instead, which interfered with my plans for a hex blade swords bard. That did make me grumble a lot in the beginning, although this campaign has turned out to be my favorite that I've ever played in. Would have been cool if I didn't have to negotiate a reworking of my character plan though. Ironically, my swords bard has ended up being one of the main tanks anyway because of our fighter missing so many sessions. As a compromise I took Magic Initiate Warlock for Hex, Green Flame Blade, and Booming Blade, and the GM lets me cast one attack as a cantrip like a Bladesinger. Then he gave me a 1d6 radiant sword, and now I'm doing a solid 40-50 on attack turns. I go down a lot but I also gish like crazy.
If a player is excited by an idea for a character, my instinct is to encourage their enthusiasm. As long as I can access the details of their character build I can prepare accordingly. If I’m not presenting enough of a challenge because of their abilities, it’s up to me to adjust encounters to make sure everyone’s having fun. I realise I’m probably a bit easy-going, but ultimately I just want my friends to have fun, otherwise what’s the point?
One thing to note about the flight is that it only functions in Dim Light/Darkness so in daylight it ain't gonna function. I know Twilight Sanctuary creates dim light but my DM and I ruled that it wouldn't lower the illumination to that level if the light is already brighter than that. Really curbs the potential of the flight
Basically, I ban everything published after Mearls left Wizards (and I say that because I think he was the core of the core of 5e, and it was certainly felt when he left, but I digress). The power creep from Tasha's onwards is off the charts, and there is a lot of bleed between the "roles" or "feel" of the different classes. The reason I ban it is not a player vs DM thing, but rather it steals the thunder of anyone playing pure PHB characters. It makes them feel worthless and frustrated that they don't have any situation where they can shine. This isn't a table dynamic thing, but just a pure gap in power and overlap of role that is substantial enough as to be felt every session.
We had exactly three encounters with a Twilight Domain cleric in the party right after it was released before the player himself said "This thing is insanely broken. We need to nerf it now." And we did.
I know a DM who has a ban on all Warlocks. Has nothing to deal with balance or their world. They just have a religous belief that anything that draws power from something else is... wrong? Given that, I have no idea how they justify the rest of DnD, but power to them
This is like how I originally was goings to make my artificer/rogue a arcane trickster. Of course mechanically it makes sense but for Fyree it really didn't feel right. She wasn't a person who used her magic to trick people. She used her natural thieving skills to help her steal magic items so she could be more knowledgeable and gain more power. I mean the only thing thief might give you over arcane trickster is the BA spell storing item but that's for DM interpretation. I just think that roleplay/what FEELS right comes first. Then feeling awesome as a player. A more wholistic and rewarding approach I feel. I even have an evil character who is purposefully not powerful but has to use his cleverness and charisma to achieve his atrocities🙃😁
I mainly use subclasses for lore and backstory reasons, think feywild wanderer for ranger, which means they aren't usually op, and if they are you talk with the DM to see how to nerf it
Gunslinger is also a CR subclass on DnD Beyond. Lol. This tells you how much of Tasha's and Xanathar's ice actually read so far bc it wouldn't have even occurred to me to ban sunglasses from them 😅
I've ran 4-5 Dnd 5eth edition campaigns, with one ending a level 10 and one that I'm soon closing out at level 20. I've not been feeling super great about it primarily because of the number of tools players receive versus the lack of tools DMs get to challenge them properly. Sometimes an encounter is a total dud just because of some of the incredible abilities they have and it can be frustrating sometimes.
I have to push back on this idea of using increased combat difficulty to compensate for powerful abilities. This just makes more work for DMs, who are already way overworked. I am not going to rescale my whole campaign for one player who wants to use a given overpowered ability.
idk like- i sometimes think restriction can breed innovation- a setting missing something kind of works? but on the power level deal- honestly it just means some free buffs should be given to shittier subs
Im currently playing a twilight cleric, id been avoiding it because its op but in this most recent campaign no other person is even a class that can give themselves temp hp or heal. So i took the strongest support class i can to give us the best chance possible to survive
Honestly, the dice I featured in the video would be PERFECT for a Twilight Cleric…
Thanks so much to OnlyCrits for sponsoring this video! Visit www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK at checkout!
www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike
Honestly, the lack of thematic coherence probably is what tipped the scales on how Twilight Cleric gets perceived. People complained about Hexblade for a long time (some still do) being too strong, but it was at least consistent on its warrior-warlock theming. Twilight is a strong subclass that doesn't seem to care it's called the Twilight domain except superficially
Hexblade is more complained for it's one level dip than a pure hexblade build. It's a very powerful one level dip for so many classes. However there is also another angle, it kinda makes pact of the blade a hexblade exclusive. Let's just say there's a reason why fjord isn't a GOOlock.
@@falionna3587this, exactly, say it a thousand times more! It breaks from the usual style of patrons to be a clearly superior power boost for gish-style play.
The "my sword IS my patron" idea could *always* have been done with the pact of the blade thematically, it never had to be its own subclass.
I turn a lot of its abilities into eldritch invocations for other blade pact warlocks (and roll the "attack with Charisma" into the +1/2/3 EIs). So... sorry hexblade, you can only be irrelevant.
To be fair, most of the people I play with aren't the type to make a deal with a sentient weapon and then drop it for Paladin or Sorcerer levels
I never liked Hexblade’s flavor in that you could really choose any kind of patron for the Hexblade since the actual patron is very vague.
I also agree on Twilight Domain. Why does my twilight/night themed Cleric get heavy armor proficiency? And the ability to give someone advantage on initiative because “the night makes you vigilant”? What does that mean?
I honestly hate the flavor for the hexblade, because the patron is soooo specific but people keep doing it because it's mechanically powerful.
Y'know how the designers intentionally made fireball overpowered, because fireballs are iconic and they wanted players to take fireball? Well warlocks are the opposite. The most iconic patrons are in the PHB (fiend, archfey, GOO), but all those _suck_ and as a result it's difficult to justify playing any of the most iconic subclasses.
Meanwhile the most popular warlock patron is.... a sentient magic weapon, infused with magic from the Shadowfell and maybe controlled by the Raven Queen. That is _comically_ specific. Nobody takes Hexblade because the idea of a talking sword is the most interesting patron; it's always because of the mechanics. For a class with such good flavor that's really disappointing imo.
My DM always makes me a homebrew subclass for all my characters - I don’t think a single character I’ve had with him had an official subclass. He always makes me one to fit my backstory and what I want for the character. I don’t ask him to do this! He just loves making homebrew and knows I love using his homebrew.
So you are an exception, all of my players hate homebrew, and love to find exploits on wotc "official" stuff.
Bravo to the commitment of your DM
I like the "your subclass should be based on your Character and how he does the thing."
I think it weird for a mage to all of sudden be like "I am a Necromancer now.. rawr"
There’s a few other Critical Role subclasses like Echo Knight, Graviturgy, etc on dnd beyond too
Also - hearing you go over Twilight Cleric makes me want a series breaking down all the subclasses
Those are specifically in collaboration with WotC, they're from the Wildemount book which is as first party as anything else. They just partnered with CR to produce it because they're popular and also that meant Matt Mercer had already done a bunch of work on the setting for free
Edit: the Paladin Oath, meanwhile, didn't release until they put out Taldorei Reborn, I believe, which is only a CR project, not WotC affiliation
So while the ones you listed are in an official book, the gunslinger and bloodhunter are on there, which proves your point
A good resource would be Treantmonk’s “Ranking the Subclasses” series
Got an ad break in the middle of the sponsored segment. A perfect snapshot of modern UA-cam’s attitude towards content creators 😅
If my players are fighting humanoids or other "sentient" beings and one starts to fly, the next one on initiative uses a free action to yell "FLYER!" and the rest concentrate on that character if able. It's caused them to plan ahead to protect/distract from the flyer(s) and promotes tactical thinking. Matt does it well - a party's enemies aren't dumb. And, dispell magic has a pretty long range.
As funny as that is, dispel magic isn't very relevant in this context.
The twilight domain cleric's flight isn't a spell, so dispel magic can't do dick diddly against it. It also doesn't require concentration, so focusing on the flyer won't matter until they reach 0 hp and drop, and that's damage you're not dealing to the people massacring you in your faces.
That is a tactically ill advised move.
@@The_Crimson_Witch While it is not a spell, it is a magical effect. This means dispel magic can target it. But it only ends spells? That seems strange.
I know a few folks that really crap on the Twilight Domain Cleric for being "too powerful" but I think the sleeper star of Tasha's is actually the Peace Domain. Being able to stack emboldening bond with bless at such a low level just really mucks with balance in a very, very obvious way (but it's so, so satisfying to play).
Twilight has a lot of strong abilities, but Peace straight up starts breaking down bounded accuracy.
Yeah, Peace is also really good. Both are clearly ahead of the pack. I think Peace is slightly "better" but I also think it causes game play to slow way down; especially if stacked with Bless spell which is common. The only advantage of the Peace and Twilight domains is at least they help the whole party so it's not just one broken person outshining everyone.
I'm not a fan of either of those Domains; they're the only subclasses I've banned from my current campaign.
To clarify why I don't care for Peace and Twilight, I just see them as being overpowered. In general, I tend to not like a subclass that is so powerful that *everyone* wants to take it.
@Heritage367 I'm less bothered by it because I enjoy having over powered characters and will use magic items to level out the party's power, however I understand that isn't universal.
Twilight Cleric's strongest ability is spamming temp hp, so if you want to rebalance it I'd say you can either A) limit the twilight shroud benefits to once per turn
Or
B) have it be 1d6+half their cleric level
Or
C) 1d6+PB
Or any combination of the above.
For a while, I thought that the magic in D&D 5e was BECAUSE of the subclasses and not because of magic weapons. So when people have a powerful subclass, I tend to reward the other players with magic items to balance things out. The problem comes when that person is an unarmed monk.
Ideas for cool magic items for an unarmed monk (because i love monks): Eldritch Claw Tattoo, Blood Fury Tattoo, any of the belts of giant strength, if you have casters in the party why not let the monk cast Haste on himself with ring of spell storing, bracers of defense, bracer of flying daggers, and the granddaddy of them all if you want your monk to be god: Gloves of Soul Catching.
@Kuro Shinigami some good ideas here, thanks Kuro!
How about some jewelry or enchanted piece of clothing (which is not armor)?
@@kuroshinigami9143 There is now also the dragon hide belt, the only monk specific item
@@The_Crimson_Witch dragonhide belt is cool, though i wouldnt consider it that good honestly.
Initiative order does matter in the grand scheme of things. If the initiative order starts with a crowd control or a save or suck spell from your spellcasters, the fight becomes significantly easier.
I completely agree with you, but I think the point he was making was: "What does going first have to do with evening or starlight? How is this a thing for Twilight domain?"
@@davidarmstrong1617 he also made that point, right after saying that the initiative order does not matter in the grand scheme of things
Oh it matters. I lost a character to a bad initiative roll. It was glorious 😊
Yeah it matters a ton.
I’m about to start Curse of Strahd with players that have all played DnD for less than a year. I told them they could use any subclass in the player’s handbook not to overwhelm my players or myself. The caveat was that if any player had a idea for a character that suited another book’s subclass I’d be more than happy to allow it. In pracrice the barbarian who was powered by ancestors and wanted to be a tank got the ancestral guardian subclass, while the cleric agonized over which PHB domain he wanted, eventually asking for forge domain which we allowed as well or course. I think by the end of this campaign and video I’ll open the door to the rest of the subclasses!
Good luck! I started Curse of Strahd as a newer DM (about a year experience) and it was a rough start…I think I have my feet under time now, but it took a while. There’s just a lot in CoS and it needed a lot of tweaking to make it interesting for my table.
I've never felt more connected to you than when you talked about how your monsters never get higher than a 5 for initiative. That's also been my life as a dm for the last couple of years lol
Meanwhile my first ever combat I ran as a DM saw a pack of three Deinonychus collectively roll 20 on Initiative and nearly kill the poor Bard who couldn't get to the back line fast enough.
Though she was a Valor Bard so let's be honest this probably would have happened anyway.
I think this feeling comes from the fact that there are a lot of player facing spells and abilities that grants bonuses/advantage on initiative but almost no comparable monster abilities so initiative tends to trend in the party’s favor.
I started scripting my initiative when I build a combat so groups usually go on 20, 15, 10, 5. I had too many combats that were over before they started, or just had all the monsters clumped together making combat flow horribly. This way, I can guarantee some of the monsters get to go, and they are interspersed between player actions so everything flows better.
I was hesitant to do it at first because I didn't want to feel "too scripted", but it really makes the game more fun for everyone.
@@shweppy That’s a good idea. I do think I might miss that element of randomness but I’ve definitely seen the same problems you’re talking about. I might give that a try
If I dm I roll moderately high, as a player never above a 10
Its as simple for me as saying the twilight domain aura is concentration. There's precedent for that (trickery domain) and is sufficiently powerful to warrant it.
Damn okay that's actually a pretty easy tone back.
I’m leaving 5e behind mostly so don’t really have to worry about this, but my take has basically always been that, even though some subclasses are a little unbalanced, they aren’t SO unbalanced that they’ll break my game.
Another way to do it is “hey, this is known as a super powerful subclass. If it becomes a problem, we’ll need to talk about a few tweaks.”
Or just ban it. That works too, but is generally less well received.
I'm not going to ban it, but I did tell a player that we might need to discuss the Gloom stalker for Icewind Dale due to the light levels.
My solution was to allow it but occasionally have the wandering encounters happen during daylight and moon light hours.
Not brought up in the video, but did you know the Twilgiht Cleric aura also causes the area around them to be Low Light and thus one of the popular power builds is Twilight Cleric/Gloomstalker for self-perpetuating invisibility?
@@CameronsVideo Don't Gloomstalkers only get their practical invisibility benefit in complete darkness, though? In low light, they can still be seen.
@MrSirDrDaddy That wouldn't work. The gloom stalker needs to be in complete darkness to use that ability.
Twilight clerics are literally extra-blessed clerics of one particular deity - rare and revered among clerics. If you want to be one, which has happened only once, you've got the weight of the world on your shoulders.
I have updated a few subclasses to be stronger, specifically the weaker options found in SCAG
As for thematic, the advantage on initiative most likely is based on the lore side of deities the twilight domain would work for, such as Selune and Sehanine, who deal heavily in divination, giving visions to their followers as they are often seen as the seers in the realms, the flight also obviously revolves around the idea of these deities flying through the night sky, the moon or the luminous cloud respectively. If you are playing a cleric and not worshiping either Sehanine or Selune, I could see an issue with the thematic of Twilight Cleric, but that is more the fault of how 5e handles domains and deities. (at least in Forgotten Realms. I am a FR lore nerd and know little to nothing of the other settings)
Honestly I appreciate these videos because they serve as healthy examples of what other tables and groups very different than mine look like. I like to run heavy curated games but that is active work that I put into it. My main group are all players that enjoy that aspect of the world and are actually interested in crunchy dungeon crawls and races with very defined fantasies. I also run beginner games for strangers on Roll20 as a way to give new players a solid introduction to the hobby and making sure they all get equal chances to shine regardless of how much optimization they are looking for/accidentally stumble into.
On another note from the video I am actually kind of worried about what impact DnD Beyond is having on tables and new players. It has gotten to the point that I'm considering just not allowing it as I end up with players that seem to understand their character's mechanics less from not having actually filled out a character sheet. That and the amount of content out there of questionable balance is sometimes giving echoes of when new players showing up with something they took off dndwiki
Never thought about banning subclasses, but maybe because I'm quite new as a DM and still learning how to balance and see what are my strong points as a DM. So for the time being everything is open. But the idea of tweaking something in order for everyone having fun is good. I'll keep that in mind.
A big thing is about the players at your table. If you are playing a casual game, it'll 99% of the time be fine. Some players aren't like that though, and if you've ever played with a hardcore min-maxer, the power difference between characters can be quite extreme.
@@andrewshandle I understand what you mean, and I agree. But I need to, also, learn how to DMing and for that I need to fail on my own (although all tips are appreciated).
Great video! ... yeah, the power creep in recent products has always concerned me. I'm in the camp that believes that all subclasses for a particular class should be relatively balanced. It usually becomes a problem when one or more choices becomes so blatantly more powerful than other selections, that a player would be considered foolish to pick anything but the more optimal choice. Twilight cleric is a perfect example (though not the only example).
In my campaign, I initially banned the Twilight domain cleric for balance reasons... I'd noticed in other campaigns that they were often chosen over other domains, and when I observed one of our most experienced players arguing with a newer player that Twilight domain was the best and therefore the only choice they should make, I had to take action. At first, I banned it, so I could study a better solution. Finally, I brought back a VARIANT of the subclass... it's been nerfed considerably, but this actually makes it only slightly more potent than many other core domains.
1.) Twilight clerics lose the 300 ft. darkvision... instead, they can cast the Darkvision spell once per long rest without using a spell slot ... They can cast it on themselves or on another willing target if they choose. Darkvision is also added to their list of known spells and is always prepared, so they can grant darkvision to others if they choose but it will cost them a spell slot. Since the spell lasts 8 hours, it has roughly the same effect in game. (**it should be noted that I do use dim light and darkness quite a bit in my DM strategies, and players learn to carry light sources. I have outlawed darkvision for most races and only grant it to races that predominantly live underground, i.e., dwarves, goblins, orcs, etc. So nerfing darkvision is definitely in my campaign's best interest.**)
2.) Twilight clerics lose proficiency in heavy armor. There is nothing in the Twilight domain description that leads me to any imagery imagining plate mail or heavy duty armor training. Shields and medium armor should be sufficient.
3.) Twilight Sanctuary ... when a cleric uses their channel divinity to create a sphere of twilight, it gives everyone in the area (friend or foe) either 1d6 + cleric level temp hit points, or if they have the charmed and/or frightened condition, instead it ends those effects immediately. That's it... The target doesn't need to stay near the cleric afterward, and it has no consecutive effects after that first round of effect. It doesn't refresh every round. If you want to do it again later in combat, you need to expend another use of Channel Divinity.
And finally, 4.) Steps of Night is treated as the Fly spell... It grants a flight speed of 60 ft and requires concentration. It can only be cast on yourself and cannot be upcast. In the event that you are no longer in dim light or darkness, the spell ends, and you receive the benefit of a Feather Fall spell on yourself until the end of your next turn. This ability can only be used once per short rest.
(p.s. Also want to point out that Leomund's Tiny Hut seems like a strange (i.e., stupid) choice for a 3rd-level domain spell. It has nothing to do with anything regarding night, day, or starlight, not to mention it's horrifically overpowered as it is, and its inclusion as a ritual spell means an end to any nighttime encounters... you know, when the Twilight clerics' powers work best? Dumb, dumb idea...)
I feel like those changes are bit too much and turn it to really weak subclass. I would just give them the same darkvision that gloomstalker gets (aka 60ft or +30ft if you already had darkvision), and just make CD to use their reaction to give someone (including themself) temp hp when they end their turn in the aura, so you can only do it to one person per round. The fly I think is fine, people tend to over react on flying a lot in general, it's not really that big of a deal if you are even half-decent at encounter building. Also, if you actually read the description of the Twilight domain, Leomund's Tiny Hunt makes perfect sense. Here is a quote. 'Clerics who serve these deities bring comfort to those who seek rest and protect them...' that's exactly what Leomund's Tiny Hut does.
I've never had a player not check if a subclass was ok before we start playing, none of them have assumed all official ones are ok. On the other hand, I haven't ever banned a subclass though... I have advised against some though because of what campaign we will be running (aka they won't really benefit or get to use the abilities). But then again... my gaming group are very much for communicating outside of the play at table.
I currently have in my rules that you’re allowed to freely pick from PHB and XGE, because those are the books I have. Anything else is allowed only after I get a chance to read it and manually approve it, so that I can know what your character can do before you do it, so I’m not sitting there during the game looking up an ability I’ve never heard of before that bypasses an entire chunk of the game.
I love the "improvise, adapt, overcome" feeling as a DM of trying to make creative challenges for my players as their abilities get stronger
I think your point about how you'd handle the twilight cleric brings up the fundamental flaw with these sub-classes. As a system 5e requires so much work out of the DM anyway, so needing to adapt encounters because players are too powerful creates an extra amount of work. I think it's reasonable, especially if running official adventures, to ban subclasses for this reason.
Another reason for banning certain subclasses is having an unhealthy gameplay tendencies. I personally ban the Peace domain because it's mechanically powerful but also drags down gameplay with all the extra dice it makes. Certain DMs ban spells like Conjure Animals for similar reasons, just drags out combat to much. I think banning to increase fun and create less work for the DM is the right approach.
Incredibly based take.
Yeah anything disrupts the flow of the game or puts an extra burden on the DM is a problem. It's why I usually suggest for new DMs to have their players just stick with the PHB when making characters and not allow multi-classing. That way it'll be easier to run the game, create encounters and also doesn't require the pre-written adventures to be adjusted.
I ban a subclass whenever I have a problem with its design that I can't work with and haven't found a way to fix yet. Sometimes this happens due to balance issues, but usually this happens because of the fun factor, or rather the lack thereof.
For instance, in one of my earlier campaigns, I had a player who wanted to be a Wild Magic Sorcerer. They'd heard some funny stories about it on Reddit, and wanted to try it out.
Fast forward about 20 sessions, and they've still never had a Wild Magic Surge. Once I realized that they were basically playing without a subclass, I asked them if they wanted to change their Origin, and they gave an enthusiastic yes. They made the switch, and then I banned Wild Magic until I'd had a chance to redesign it.
I did some homebrew, and when the next campaign started, I presented my changes to that same player, and they decided to try them out. They had a lot more fun this time.
Great discussion, Mike!
Mike: talking about people banning twilight domain.
My DM: encouraging me to take it for my 2 levels of cleric because it made story sense and also its op.
You can really tell that a lot of the other players are power gamers, huh
The biggest problem for your advice for DM's "rising to the challenge" is that you need to have experience on how to tweak your monsters and tactics to do that, which means you have to have already DMed for a while.
For a new DM this is yet another hurdle on top of everything else they have to prepare for, and it's already hard enough to find people willing to try DMing for a first time with 5E as is.
this is a valid point. my personal experience though is that its always easier to make something stronger than it is to make something weaker, the stronger your players are the more wiggle room you have as a DM to challenge without outright killing them.
"going first in initiative doesn't matter"
my assassin rogue gloom stalker ranger killing everything before it gets a turn: :)
I never ban anything outright at my table. I’ve found the best way to handle content a player is interested in that I’m not familiar with is to just say I need to read the subclass and understand before they play it. It’s worked out great for me and my players are having fun.
I am soon(-ish) gonna be running my first campaign, and I am gonna be running it for players who has basically never played before.
Bet your booty I am gonna ban the necromancer subclass for wizard, and potentially any other that is made with the explicit idea of controlling a handful of minions. Not because of balance or anything, simply because all of us are new, and I know enough that many creatures in the hand of someone inexperienced is gonna slow everything to a crawl as soon as combat starts
I think it's interesting that Twilight Cleric is the one that gets the bans from Tasha's when Peace is *so* much worse.
I both "ban" subclasses -- mostly "hey, I'm allowing stuff from the PHB and most things from Xanathar's, if you want a Tasha's, Mercer, or Kobold Press subclass it's case-by-case" -- and rewrite them. I use the standard fix of taking "attack with Charisma" off hexblade and put it on Pact of the Blade both for opening up melee as an option for other warlock subclasses, and for making multiclass hexblade shenanigans for paladin/bard require a 3-level dip, not a 1-level one.
I also think there are some subclasses I would allow, but taking them removes your option to multiclass, since the issue isn't so much that the subclass is powerful, but that their level 1-3 features are both strong and scale very well. Level 1-3 subclass features that key off proficiency bonus often make extremely strong multiclass dips, and those are the ones where I'd either alter the subclass, or not allow it as a dip/not allow multiclassing with it.
As far as I am concerned, the best reason to ban the Twilight Cleric is that I just don't find the concept of the Twilight Domain compelling enough or plausible enough to account for it in the cosmology of my setting. Twilight is such a fleeting, ephemeral condition that the whole concept of it being a separate Domain just doesn't make sense. And if I did allow such a concept, it certainly wouldn't operate the way Hasbro's authors have conceived of it.
This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say, as I have said many, many times over, that the biggest problem with D&D is that Hasbro ties too much of what really should be considered setting-dependent to the core rules. The idea of the Twilight Domain has ramifications for the fundamental cosmology/theology of the setting.
I don’t ban things because my group, like many groups, don’t actually get to play that often. Why would I try to cut their options short when it’s hard enough to get a game scheduled? It’s a game! If it ends up not being fun, then I’ll change things. But I’m not clairvoyant so I can’t with 100% certainty say that one option will be that sticky cog in the engine of fun. Plus, I want to experience as much of the game firsthand as I possibly can. Makes me a better DM.
My world didn’t have warforged. A player wanted to be a warforged. Woops look at that I just created a really cool reason why warforged are starting to exist. And it’s one of the narrative pieces I’m now most proud of! Cooperative storytelling, man this game is dope.
omg I loved your sponsor portion! it was so funny. I usually skip but I didn't this time and I'm very glad that I didn't because it was great.
06:23 OK, historically I've only really enjoyed The Coimmand Zone's mid-roll ads, but this one was great! 😃 My LoVM kickstarter dice have been sitting alone for TOO LONG!
11:25
We're talking about an improv role playing, table top game, between friends Where no rule is truly ever absolute
Communicating healthily will always be the right answer
been sorta having problems with the hexblade in my group. my solution was to lean into the power creep and start randomly throwing hexblades at the party in a highlander sort of way. everything the players have i have too.
The player of the Twilight cleric in my last game got used to hearing me frequently say, "Look at me, I'm a Twilight cleric, I break the game." But we all understood it was a joke. Mostly I said it so she would feel badass when she did something cool. Nobody else at the table seemed to be overshadowed, and that's what I was really looking for. I find it way more fun for the table when I am saying yes to the players instead of no.
I've just started a new xampaign as a twilight cleric. Our party includes a bear totem barbarian who's pretty much unkillable when raging while sanctuary is up. DM is suspiciously chill about it... and that scares me more than anything 😳
The twilight domain cleric also gets heavy armour proficiency, which certainly isnt uncommon for cleric subcalsses, but it is something of a dividing line and its funny it gets to cross that line given literally everything else it has going on.
Friendly reminder that creatures with darkvision, while being able to see in non-magical darkness, have disadvantage on the perception checks they make in darkness, since the darkness is treated as dim light and dim light has the same effect as lightly obscured area "In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight." I know it doesn't fix the darkness issue, but I feel like this is probably overlooked a lot.
Edit as a disclaimer: I recently started playing my first cleric, and he is twilight domain. Not because I think twilight is strong, which I do, but because I like the idea of balancing between ideals and finding a true neutrality. So my character is a servant of the god of death, but not in an evil way. Death is neither evil, nor good. Death simply is. There are times when he must introduce others to death and times he must keep others from death. Honestly, not too sure where I want to fully go with the character, because I'm not great at making compelling characters - also he has no background whatsoever. But I hope to flesh him out some more and find out eventually.
I play a twilight cleric too and I really like this aspect, even though I think my take is slightly different than yours (I usually tend to work from what is said in the books, and not following them at the letter)
Twilight clerics are called like this because they are watchers, guardians that appears at twilight, when night comes, and they are tasked to make the night easier for everyone. To make sure the sleep of the people is not disturbed. Just like with you, death is just a part of things and is closer to sleep than most people accept. Their motto is "Sleep is the sibling of Death" (an ancient Greek saying: to hypnos delphi thanatou esti), so they are tasked with the sleep of the Dead.
They see Undeads as victims of bad necromancy, because they were not asked to come back, so a part of their soul was ripped in the process.
I play a twilight cleric in Curse of Strahd, Aeres Achelepios Orgé. He was named Achelepios (and goes by that name) by his mother, a courtesan, who saw in him a healer, were his father, a renowned soldier saw in him a warrior.
He never had a place in his parent's love for each other (both of them never really knew what parenting was), so he fought since the age of 16 in war as a simple soldier (multiclass, one level in fighter, protection style, as I imagine him as an hoplite, with the lance and shield). When he was around 20, he met a prostitute with a baby saying that it was his (it may or may not be his biological child, but he does not care), and he went away from the battlefield. He was in a town trying to win food for his baby and wife, in order for her not to make her old job again, when he met a young 14 years old girl while he was holding his crying daughter. The baby had not been sleeping for a few days, which was worrying. The young girl (an oath of the ancient paladin, champion of Malikki, another party member) told him to go and see the gods, so he went to pray for Hypnos, Godess of sleep and dreams, and succeeded in his prayers. To thanks the goddess, he swore to serve her, and trained the young girl as thanks for her guidance.
He serves as a guardian in the night, trying to feed his 6 years old daughter, Irene Eldathé Orgé, just like his parents named him after gods they respected, he named her after a God whose ideals he wants her to live by.
Human variant, Sentinel feat, Skill expert feat (perception), twilight cleric (3) /fighter (1).
His arc is that he is indeed very powerful and serves a very powerful goddess (she could be a servant of the Matron of raven, an enemy of Orcus), but with his very whole 7 charisma, he completely lacks confidence, and though he respects his goddess, he does not see her in her whole power. His arc is to gain assurance in his powers and to convince himself that he can and have to help the people of Barovia, following his order's code.
@@anatoleleconte9698 This is really cool.
The dice ad 😂
I personally don't find the argument that a class/subclass/race/spell isn't overpowered because the DM can alter the monster by giving the owlbear wings and a fly speed for example to be a good argument. When determining the strength of a feature in a system it has to be done within the system, not by someone or something that can change anything on a whim.
I agree. If a class is so strong that is forces the DM to have to do extra work to alter the monsters, I think we've gone past what is reasonable. 5e offloads so much work onto the DM anyway, that adding even more is pretty tough sell.
On the twilight cleric's thematic accuracy I feel it's supposed to be less about the starry sky and more about keeping people safe in the dark.
I hadn't realised there was so much negative until I started watching more d+d youtubers. The only time one of my players played this sub-class it both fit the character concept well (a university chaplain trying to keep as many students alive as possible when the university got separated from reality) and was helpful to the way the party worked together without hogging the spotlight or messing up the plans I had.
I've never banned a sub-class for power reasons, but I do ban wild magic for being a bit silly and slowing games down, and some of the ones that mention other planes when those planes aren't relevant to the setting.
I made a homebrew darkness domain cleric and my dm said that we will play it as it is and adjust as we go. really cool dm
As a big optimization nerd, I hold the unpopular opinion that twilight cleric is good because it's a cleric, and the subclass is the best cleric subclass, but it definitely isn't so much better than the other subclasses that it's super impactful. Trent monks temple has a really good video on the topic too
I agree for me it feels like that half the cleric subclasses are really strong and even the weaker once all give you good options and at the end of the day you still play a cleric.
The flight ability only works in dim light or darkness, which really does limit the usefulness of this ability.
I value RPGBot and their character optimisation articles. They provide invaluable tips for tweaking some of the more stronger classes and bringing that power curve down a little bit. Alternatively, they also help with suggestions for bumping up weaker subclasses too and making them more viable - berserker barbarian and the elemental monk as two prime examples.
I don't want to outright ban subclasses, but I do offer that if they want to play a particularly strong or unfun (for me as a DM) subclass, then if they're really set on playing that, then we look at the class together and those aforementioned articles, and work a way out together so we both benefit.
I'm seriously impressed that you ran a game with 4 druids. That's like 32 summons, that seems like absolutely game breaking. And not even in a power way, but just the sheer amounts of rolls seems very exhausting.
After playing a very fun campaign with a moon druid barbarian and a circle of spores druid I can confidently say that I absolutely ban certain spells and subclasses. Not because of power, but because of gameplay.
Moondruid beartotem barbarians have so much HP that you have to design your encounters around them, which tends to make for super deadly enemies the rest of your party can't handle. So the moondruid barbarian shines and the rest is pretty much irrelevant. I've banned this multiclass combination after the campaign ended.
Conjure animals was also used and slowed the game down, even though my wonderful boyfriend rolled any attack during the other players turns. I've changed the spell to a maximum of two summons (after the campaign) because it just slows down the game so much.
Battlemaster archer with trip attack is such an easy counter to flying PC's, with most sources of flight that do not include hover being knocked prone or having your speed reduced to 0 means falling. I have a barb with winged boots and the polearm master and sentinel feats who has been known to do such things in aerial combat, and he has taken more damage in a single hit from falling than anything else.
Good thing you are bad ass DM, yet it is still hard to do good adjustment
To be really honest, it really pisses me off that DMs might have to do WotC's job on top of other stuffs DMs have to do.
Insane thing is, for Twilight, UA wasnt this broken.
Lastly, oh hi doggie.
i second, "oh hi doggie"
5E Subclasses remind me of the over-proliferation of kits in 2E.
The whole thing feels like planned obscelence to me. Eventually there is so much junk, you just need a new edition just to clean things up.
Any and all official and UA material is good at my table. I used to also say no homebrew, but ive grown to say homebrew is fine if you bring it to me first and agree to let me modify it if i deem it too powerful or too weak (this point will come up later in this paragraph). as a DM i want my players to feel powerful, and for them to fight powerful foes. at my table ive had issues with players intentionally making weak characters (to the detriment of the others in the party if im being honest) so when someone shows up with a strong character im actually relieved, i dont have to worry about them dying easily. one of my favorite parts of being a DM is creating memorable and fun encounters, the stronger my players are the more opportunities i have for powerful foes to throw against them. i understand if a DM would want to ban something at their table for lore reasons, but mechanically i would advocate for reflavoring it to fit your campaign more than outright banning it. for example if giants dont exist in your setting you can let a rune night's runes be magic sigils, psionics can be other forms of magic, etc. (also can we please get over the "guns dont belong in muh fantasy"? ignoring historical annecdotes some players like being that artificer/inventor with the impactful invention).
wow i really went on a few tangents here huh?
17:44 insert clip from legend of vox machina where Vex says "he gets wings and I get a damn broom"
Lol I didn’t want to throw in the clip because of spoilers, but if you know you know 😉
Open, honest and respectful communication; who do you think I am, a decent person? Lol
Nah, encouraging comms is always good, we need more reminders than we would like to admit.
I think a lof of people overestimate how powerful darkvision is. You can easily have stuff sneak up on players or the like despite them having darkvision.
My biggest issue with Twilight is the aura temp-HP negating the value of most other sources of temp HP. It's not a player-personality-defect to feel crappy when a cool feature of your character or spell gets negated. Communication is part of a solution, but if we're not banning or nerfing, the gist of that communication is "we have a Twilight cleric, so a lot of things that were good are now redundant."
Edit: redundant or at best situationally useful
Balance seems like such a silly thing to ever worry about. I usually set encounters by figuring the average damage my players can deal a turn and picking 3 types of enemy.
Goons - can be killed in under 2 rounds by one character. They are fodder
Sargents - they can be killed in 3 - 5 rounds by one character. I usually put one every 3 - 6 goons.
Commanders - these are the big bosses and are designed to soak damage and use bonus actions to make the lesser enemies perform tasks. You get one strong one or two moderately strong ones per encounter.
Now I start with double the omayer count in goons and add an appropriate number of Sargents and a Commander. If the omayer mop the floor I bring in more sets of goons with Sargents until the players are bloodied when I make the enemy retreat.
I also find if I put a timer on combat it artificially inflates the drama and the players don't care if they stomp the enemy easily.
Every fight there is a reason the players can't lock themselves in a room and drop a healing spirit and such. They are trying to free a captive that is being dragged away, they have a profane ritual that is being cast over 5 rounds and need to disrupt it, their main target is escaping and these enemies are jsut to slow them down.
Balance is all about giving the players a fun experience, don't burn yourself out over something as silly as the players getting fly speed or some other broken combat ability, it likely won't help them to save the wounded soldier bleeding out in one of 4 rooms on the other side of an enemy infested ballroom and they have no idea which one.
this
I find the newer the subclass, the more niche the fantasy. It's kinda inevitable, the most universal and coherent fantasies get used first. Like Mike said, it's not really clear what some of the twilight cleric's abilities have to do with its theme.
That's why I most often say no to subclasses, it's when they don't fit the tone or setting of my game.
I'm not fully agreeing with your game balance argument. Little story on this one. When I was new to 5e I played in a fresh group as a Moon Druid. So no one of us knew that in a campaign designed for levels 1-5 (maybe 6) Moon Druids tend to be really strong (Temp HP, very good combat forms for those levels at CR1 and so on).
After a few sessions on level 2 and 3 I talked to the DM, whether we shouldn't add a step in the CR levels for a slower progession. But he had the same arugment as you did. I just up the challange. That worked for my character. But giving me a challange really made all others who had to wait for level 5 for stuff like their Extra attack struggle. The blanace problem is not player versus GM it is and always has been among the player group. And strong abilities are not the real problem. It is abilities that let you outshine other players regulary. In particular when those abilities let you shine in a field that other classes feel to be rightfully theirs (Moon Druid Full Caster and outclasses the Barbarian in meele below level 5 ...).
Just banning the subclass is not the best soloution in my opinion though. When I DM'ed later I gave Moon Druids a better Wildshape progression table. One that also adresses the long gap between level 6 (CR2) and 10 (Elemental transformation). That way they can still be a cool Moon Druid but not be a Dire Wolf (or similar) at level 2.
On the topic of 3rd party content on D&D Beyond there is also the Blood Hunter Class and the Gunslinger Subclass for Fighter (both Critical Role content as well).
Notification hits and I watch. It is that simple
I only banned some subclasses because the setting I'm running has a hard stance on undead. It's one that simply stands as a "hey guys before you start thinking about characters, undead are pure evil in this setting and I'm going with general good party".
There is one buff I give to Monks whenever I DM. Step of the Wind no longer costs a Ki Point. I feel that if a Rogue can Dash and Disengage for a bonus action only, I don't see why it should cost the Monk a Ki Point and a bonus action to do essentially the same thing. I know that the Monk can Dodge as well, but I don't think that alone justifies costing a Ki Point.
If a DM is running a published adventure, banning one subclass that isn't all that thematically "correct" anyway is a lot easier than rebalancing every encounter in the book.
I altered Twilight Sanctuary in my campaign: the temp HP happens ONCE on activation, scales with Wis rather than having a d6, and gets the charm/fear negation once per person on activation. And it's still *very* strong.
I personally as a DM am also not a fan of banning official stuff in DnD, especially not for being too powerful. After all, DnD is a power fantasy for the players. I even try to tailor my encounters so that my players can actually use the abilities they have access to. Also, I have a 50-page long document in which I even detail buffs to any subclass (and even a few for some classes) I felt was mechanically weaker than the others, so as to open up more doors and ways to play different types of characters, without my players feeling they made a mistake choosing a specific type of fantasy they wanted to explore.
So if one is really that pressed by a certain subclass like the Twighlight Domain Cleric, how about instead of banning the subclass altogether either nerf the subclass in some way (I personally wouldn't do that), like say they have to use their reaction to grant the temp HP from their Channel Divinity, which would lead to them having to expend some resources of their action economy, or step up your game, as Mike suggests. Play your villains smarter. Have your monsters notice that the party is constantly running back to their Cleric, even a below-average intelligence monster should be able to realize that it is probably smart to target the Cleric, even more than it usually is. As long as you don't have them do that immediately, but have them realize what is happening two or three rounds in, you're good. If you are in a dungeon, have one of the monsters flee and tell the others to target the Cleric specifically. Be creative, be smart, be a Dungeon Master.
By banning a Class, Race, or Subclass from the get-go, you really run the risk of snuffing out the excitement of your players. (Unless you want to limit choice to make it easier for newer players to get into the game, that's fine I'd say)
I recently started playing 5e with a new group when I used to play 3.5. Imagine my surprise when I the elf fighter think I’ll be the only one with dark vision since there are no dwarves but literally everyone has it one way or another and they are playing races not in the book I own. My fighter feels out classed and I kinda feel like I let my character down by not knowing enough about other options to maximize his usefulness. It’s weird for me to think this way because the role play was always more important to me in 3.5 anyway but I can’t really play my fighter as someone who is a bit cocky at being the best fighter in his elven tribe even if they were all focused on Magic when he doesn’t seem to be the fighter of the group if that makes sense. Like sorry cool elven fighter I did not realize bugbear barbarian or stone genasi clerics were going to be here beside you 😅.
Big fish in a small pond 😅
Just a slight correction, Oath of the Open Sea isn't the only non-WOTC subclass on DNDbeyond. They also have the Way of the Cobalt Soul Monk and Gunslinger Fighter
Gunslinger is on DM’s Guild so that makes some sense (it’s technically owned by WotC, like the blood hunter), but I didn’t realize the Cobalt Soul was also on D&D Beyond!
I never ban player options. But I also adjust my important encounters on the fly to provide a challenge.
i didn't realize twilight domain was op lol. now i get how i terrify my partner (he usually prefers to dm) with characters that are accidentally overpowered but i just thought were cool thematically
Haha I really should have used my patron powers to scream "Hexblade" every hour on the leadup to this video. 😋
Would love to have seen it addressed, since it leans so much more to the "unfair for other players / ability jealousy" aspect. They have lots of great abilities and PoB warlock wants but they tie them to that one patron... who has no thematic fun that that can't just be RPd in for a regular blade pact!
But anyway, great video as ever Mike. I think from your conclusion, it really does depend (as ever) if you think these particular abilities will interact badly with the challenges you specifically want to set. Which is my usual rule (besides setting-appropriateness) for deciding if something should be banned from a particular campaign.
I would say at the 3-minute mark, I'm a DM who is not actually afraid to cut or forbid races, subclasses, and classes; however, I also wouldn't be anywhere close to offended or considered a red flag if somebody had made a character using anything in the PHB, Tasha's, or xanathars, without asking me. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume those are on the table unless they've been explicitly taken off. Now, if I have taken them off the table, I expect it would be a red flag if somebody tried to argue that with me, but it wouldn't be a red flag if they just assumed IMO
I don't mind subclasses being OP, but I'm almost always a player. The one time I DM'd, my reasonably-strong party got 3/4 of the way through Lost Mines and then none of them rolled higher than a 12 on Venomfang and they all got eaten, so my perspective on that side of the screen is... limited. Hoping to run again soon, just as soon as I can finalise the last dungeon and find the time/energy to run the thing.
From my perspective, I don't really mind my comrades being OP. If my friends are deleting the bad guys then I'm cool with that.
What I _do_ have a problem with is subclasses that are just better versions of extant subclasses.
Take, for example, the Eldritch Knight. Meant to be a standard Gish build that leans more on the stabbing than the casting, it is worse at being a Gish than basically every other Gish option. It's a quarter-caster, meaning its spells cap out at Lv.4, so it's not even all that good at the magic thing. I made an arguably superior Gish build with a _single-class Sorcerer_ once. And there's no more perfect an example of EK being underwhelming than its shinier, newer brother from another class, Bladesinger.
If you want to be a melee-focused spellcaster who runs off of INT and casts from the Wizard spell list... just be a Bladesinger. You'll have far more versatility, access to higher-level spells, more slots to use them with, and _better spells for fighting in melee._ Take, for example, Tenser's Transformation, which is a great spell for the discerning Muscle Mage, and completely and totally not available to EKs.
Wizard in general is fairly guilty of stepping on the toes of other classes a _lot,_ I remember when the fandom's favourite punching bag was Loremaster, but in this case it feels a little more ridiculous.
Why is darkvision so impactful to DMs? In the games I've ran, it doesn't bug me that players can see what the cave I made looks like. If they couldn't, it'd be sad for everyone. And as the DM, I can always say "there's some magical inky void business going on that you can't see through" if I absolutely have to
Reporting from Twilight domain gameplay: Channel divinity is strong in cramped encounters at 2nd level yeah but I never used it again after 5th except outside of combat as a free Lesser Restoration to cure charmed since Spirit Guardians and Spirit Shroud have more bang for buck imo. I wasn't the only healer and I was more specced for tanking and 2nd dps.
I flew about alot but only at night or in dungeons (since you can't fly in bright light) while most encounters happened in well-lit rooms or outdoors on the road. It functioned much more as it is named; "steps of the night" or whatever, it was a bonus movement option for when we were sneaking about or setting up an ambush, it just replaced climbing for like 40% of climbing situations. Cloak of the bat is a rare magic item with a similar function (one of many), at 6th level that seems reasonable as a subclass option, Tempest gets its cool rebuke move, Light gets to share their warding flares, personal, conditional, limited flight is only a bit stronger.
Advantage on initiative is nice but weaker on its own than most other 1st level cleric subclass abilities.
Darkvision. The first criticism of 5e. You would have thought people would have come up with solutions to the "problem" by now. Half your party already has darkvision on account of the tieflings, nobody has ever noticed that darkvision has a range on it so 300ft is functionally identical to 60ft. I never even had to use the ability in game, I think I mentioned it like 4 times the whole campaign. If you want to lean on darkness as the crutch that makes your encounters scary then here's your homebrew: Darkness is a light level akin to a moonless night, creatures with sensitive eyes can still operate by the light of stars. Caves have a new, darker light level: True Darkness, absolutely no light. Anyone who has ever gone caving knows this is true. Here darkvision does nothing or it gives you like 5 foot of dim light vision if it's of explicitly magical origin i.e. aasimar or tielfing or 10ft if you're a twilight cleric. There, never complain about this ever again.
At the end of the day, clerics are one of the strongest 5e classes, their subclasses are going to feel overpowered too. If Twilight Sanctuary is too strong at 2nd level then ban paladins and moon druids for games that start before 5th-level. And I'm the guy who thinks Tasha's subclasses are mostly too OP, and I never noticed Twilight was one of those OP ones, didn't even register. Rune Knight? 100%. Bladesinger? You bet. Twilight? Thats just a thematically unusual cleric, nothing to see here.
I generally assume anything from Wizards is fair game. Other publishers, not so much because I don't have access to their books or time to read them all. Homebrew is straight out, especially the subclasses I homebrewed myself.
I was very surprised to see that this discussion wasn't regarding if the subclass fit into the lore of the world. That's basically the only reason I've banned things, I want everything to feel real in the world and some of the subclasses have specific things that don't fit.
I dipped into that a bit, but mainly didn’t dwell on it because it’s such a huge consideration in my video about banning classes, and didn’t want to repeat myself too much.
@@SupergeekMike Haven't gotten a chance to check that out! I'll give it a watch! Super awesome content and thanks for the reply!
When I first saw the title, I thought you were talking about banning subclasses in general. I was thinking, "Do people play without subclasses?"
I play a Stars druid (we're currently at lvl 6) and so far in early stages, they seem broken. Chalice is basically a free Cure Wounds with a range like Healing Word. Having free Guiding Bolt is basically having free 1st spell slots. But I think it's not overpowered. Moon druids get to be brown bears at lvl 2, getting 30+ hp and a multiattack after all. You can't swap starry forms till 10th level, so until then, you have to think about which form might be best for the fight. Be support with Chalice or channel warlock and start blasting with an Archer/Guiding Bolt combo for a bit. If you make the wrong call or the tides change, it'll cost you a wild shape, which, depending on the table's play style, can be awful.
I've found (with our group at least) that in the start, they're a bit of a glass cannon, but when the martial classes hit lvl 5 and get their extra attacks, you're not the only one doing chunks of damage each round. (Of course, I also have a DM that has a bit of a war gamer mindset and Will turn me into a pin cushion lol) Also you have other things to do with your action so you're less likely to throw around a Guiding Bolt. Maybe Dragon and Call Lightning might be a better combo for a fight.
I will add that Chalice as made an interesting dynamic between my druid and our Knowledge cleric, who feels like an inadequate healer (the player and I don't have this issue; it's the characters) since my druid can heal so much more (when she decides to) compared to her. We're still in the early stages of their relationship (the two just don't hang out a lot during downtime) but it is an interesting way to have the abilities integrate with the characters.
"Initiative doesn't really matter": generally speaking, there's a case to be made for that.
Look at a notorious combat in C3 for an exception to the rule.
As to banning subclasses, I am more inclined to tweak class traits than I am to ban a subclass. If there's "too much" to tweak, though, then I may forbid it.
DnD presents a broad, generic version of a fantasy world. I don't hesitate to ban (and add) classes and subclasses to fit a particular campaign I'm running.
Races/Speices/Ancestry/whatever are often severely limited, because those are explicitly other, strange, and unusual. It helps though, that my players mostly just want to play humans anyway.
My goal is to set the tone for the world/campaign. That said, my bans are usually soft bans, so if a player wants to make a pitch for why/how something fits into the campaign, I'm happy to make adjustments.
Most DMs run dark vision wrong anyways. Total darkness gives disadvantage on perception if you have dark vision, you fail if you don't
I made a twilight domain cleric for a campaign I'm in because it was new and I liked the aesthetic--I did a bad job of actually reading it first. So it was a bit of a surprise when I realized how much of an advantage it has.
On the bright side, the campaign is Icewind Dale, which seems to have a general distaste for the players' continued survival.
I've never been asked to ban subclasses, but at my current table the GM said we could only use feats or multiclassing, not both. He said this is because he could not handle keeping track of all the variations that would bring on board. To my frustration, the table voted to use feats instead, which interfered with my plans for a hex blade swords bard.
That did make me grumble a lot in the beginning, although this campaign has turned out to be my favorite that I've ever played in. Would have been cool if I didn't have to negotiate a reworking of my character plan though.
Ironically, my swords bard has ended up being one of the main tanks anyway because of our fighter missing so many sessions.
As a compromise I took Magic Initiate Warlock for Hex, Green Flame Blade, and Booming Blade, and the GM lets me cast one attack as a cantrip like a Bladesinger. Then he gave me a 1d6 radiant sword, and now I'm doing a solid 40-50 on attack turns.
I go down a lot but I also gish like crazy.
If a player is excited by an idea for a character, my instinct is to encourage their enthusiasm. As long as I can access the details of their character build I can prepare accordingly. If I’m not presenting enough of a challenge because of their abilities, it’s up to me to adjust encounters to make sure everyone’s having fun.
I realise I’m probably a bit easy-going, but ultimately I just want my friends to have fun, otherwise what’s the point?
You can ban subclasses from the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide, and no one will care, or even notice.
One thing to note about the flight is that it only functions in Dim Light/Darkness so in daylight it ain't gonna function. I know Twilight Sanctuary creates dim light but my DM and I ruled that it wouldn't lower the illumination to that level if the light is already brighter than that. Really curbs the potential of the flight
Basically, I ban everything published after Mearls left Wizards (and I say that because I think he was the core of the core of 5e, and it was certainly felt when he left, but I digress). The power creep from Tasha's onwards is off the charts, and there is a lot of bleed between the "roles" or "feel" of the different classes. The reason I ban it is not a player vs DM thing, but rather it steals the thunder of anyone playing pure PHB characters. It makes them feel worthless and frustrated that they don't have any situation where they can shine. This isn't a table dynamic thing, but just a pure gap in power and overlap of role that is substantial enough as to be felt every session.
That’s totally fair. (To clarify, Mearls is still at Wizards, he’s on the Magic the Gathering team.)
We had exactly three encounters with a Twilight Domain cleric in the party right after it was released before the player himself said "This thing is insanely broken. We need to nerf it now." And we did.
I know a DM who has a ban on all Warlocks.
Has nothing to deal with balance or their world. They just have a religous belief that anything that draws power from something else is... wrong?
Given that, I have no idea how they justify the rest of DnD, but power to them
This is like how I originally was goings to make my artificer/rogue a arcane trickster. Of course mechanically it makes sense but for Fyree it really didn't feel right. She wasn't a person who used her magic to trick people. She used her natural thieving skills to help her steal magic items so she could be more knowledgeable and gain more power. I mean the only thing thief might give you over arcane trickster is the BA spell storing item but that's for DM interpretation. I just think that roleplay/what FEELS right comes first. Then feeling awesome as a player. A more wholistic and rewarding approach I feel. I even have an evil character who is purposefully not powerful but has to use his cleverness and charisma to achieve his atrocities🙃😁
I mainly use subclasses for lore and backstory reasons, think feywild wanderer for ranger, which means they aren't usually op, and if they are you talk with the DM to see how to nerf it
1:42 there’s also the way of the cobalt soul monk subclass on dndbeyond
Oh I didn’t realize that!
Gunslinger is also a CR subclass on DnD Beyond.
Lol. This tells you how much of Tasha's and Xanathar's ice actually read so far bc it wouldn't have even occurred to me to ban sunglasses from them 😅
1:39 cobalt souls there too. So is gunslinger. Not to mention bloodhunter subclasses, but you know.
I've ran 4-5 Dnd 5eth edition campaigns, with one ending a level 10 and one that I'm soon closing out at level 20. I've not been feeling super great about it primarily because of the number of tools players receive versus the lack of tools DMs get to challenge them properly. Sometimes an encounter is a total dud just because of some of the incredible abilities they have and it can be frustrating sometimes.
Me: "XYZ is banned, it'll throw off encounter balance."
My players: "Okay, thanks for letting me know."
I have to push back on this idea of using increased combat difficulty to compensate for powerful abilities. This just makes more work for DMs, who are already way overworked. I am not going to rescale my whole campaign for one player who wants to use a given overpowered ability.
idk like- i sometimes think restriction can breed innovation- a setting missing something kind of works? but on the power level deal- honestly it just means some free buffs should be given to shittier subs
Im currently playing a twilight cleric, id been avoiding it because its op but in this most recent campaign no other person is even a class that can give themselves temp hp or heal. So i took the strongest support class i can to give us the best chance possible to survive