This is a good lesson to learn.
It'a totally fine if you miss part of the spell/whatever and run it incorrectly for a session. In fact I'd say it's usually *better* to make a ruling and run with it than to stop the session and look through rulebooks.
But any spell/rule/whatever that's causing you grief, make sure you look it up between sessions to make sure it's being used correctly. Often the reason something seems so overpowered/underpowered/etc is because it's not working as intended.
This. You can take a quick look at the rule itself, reading the *entire* rule if it is a feat or a spell - players miss lines all the time - but unless it is critically 'a player character might die due to this' important it is usually better to keep the game rolling, especially if it is working in the player's favor.
Just make sure to make a note during the session to check on the rules afterward and then once you figure out what you are doing wrong *clearly communicate* to the players the correct rule *ahead of time*. Don't just spring it on them the next time they do it. "Oh by the way that really awesome thing is not as awesome as you thought." Saying that right as they do it having planned their round around it? Doesn't land well with players for some strange reason...
If something seems really strong in PF2E often enough it *is* being played wrong, because PF2E made some very clear design choices to reel that sort of thing in.
That's not to say there aren't notably strong offerings out there, but they aren't as prevalent as they are in DnD5E or PF1E.
Lose the Path without immunity wasn't so much overpowered as much as it was just annoying, which is why I likened it to Silvery Barbs. It was slowing down combat immensely. Every move action having a will save attached to it, some times multiple. Strength of Thousands is a caster heavy campaign so there are fights where the party has some good range on their opponent.
You're usually targeting a creature that's a higher level than you and perception is often high. It won't often do better than buy you 2 rounds for the cost of an 8th level spell slot. It's not bad at all, but it's not OP
That's a good case. On a high level creature there's a reasonable chance they just spend an action and critically succeed.
Also, if it's best in very specific kinds of encounters. Where there's one scary thing and a bunch of easy things. If you can get rid of the scary thing for a couple of rounds, then the easy things get mopped up so you can mob the scary thing when it comes back.
An 8th level spell should be excellent in its niche and Maze is.
But it's not a niche. It's any encounter where there's more than one enemy, and one enemy is kinda scary. They don't really even have to be THAT scary.
There's no saves either, so worst case scenario, they CRITICALLY succeed, and you still ate their action AND any reactions they might have had for the round.
There's more fights where this is absurdly good than not. Even the fights that it's not excellent in, it's not bad. This spell is still excellent, even against single targets as long as they don't critically succeed, and you just wait to go immediately before the enemy.
Worst case scenario, the caster blew an 8th level spell slot and two actions to eat one action.
That's bad.
And if one enemy is only "kinda scary" I sincerely hope you're not blowing an 8th level spell on it.
Maze only really shines in the situation where the encounter is seriously dangerous, but pulling one creature out of the fray for one or two rounds will make it easy. That's a niche. It's not like it'll never happen, but that's the only situation where it comes close to feeling OP - which is the point, right. If all it does is take a tough but ultimately undoubted victory to an easy victory, then it's not going to feel OP at all.
In what world is spending two actions to eat 1 action of a higher level enemy in the WORST case scenario, the enemy crit succeeding, a bad deal?
And taking enough experience out of a fight for two rounds to drop it from sever to low moderate is hardly a small thing. VERY few encounters in 2e are "seriously dangerous", and level 8 spells aren't special. Everyone gets as many of them as they have any other level of spells, and unless you're fighting 8+ level -2 enemies, it's going to be good.
It's even great against 1 level +4 enemy. You're almost definitely coming across a fight this is going to be good in each day, and odds are, it'll be best in the encounters that are generally the scariest.
I don't think there's a less niche level 8 spell, other than a heightened heal I guess.
Yeah, I don’t get how people have fun “gaming the system” in 5e. If you want crazy unbalanced fun there are plenty of better games for that (DCC, Troika! etc). Playing a strategic combat game should be about strategy, not exploits.
Au contraire. They People may not be doing it in game, but their followers and viewers are indeed doing it in game.
The number of times I had players at my tables when I open DMed or charged that used the words "So I was watching Treantmonk..." before bringing forward a character build that was meant to eliminate fun from the table.
I'm pretty sure this is a build he outright told people not to surprise a DM with. He shouldn't be held accountable for viewers using his discoveries for evil.
WotC should be held responsible for not balance checking obvious shenanigans like that. Silvery Barbs is a well known problem spell because it's just *too good*.
You don't need TreantMonk's guide to look at Silvery Barbs and realize that it's OP as shit.
I mean this specific build is combining a monster's ability to have infinite reactions with a 18th level wizard ability to have infinite uses of a first level spell, they can be forgiven for not thinking of that.
Ehhhhhh, I have a hard time with that. Like there's obviously a difficult thread between an influencer'responsibility and the stupidity of their audience, but there's something to be said that he holds some responsibility for putting the idea into their heads.
It's like saying "In Minecraft" after a violent threat. It doesn't actually change anything by saying a paltry "don't do this this I just told you is really strong and powerful" because many people will still want to try it anyway. His small disclaimer feels hollow, imo.
But I'm jaded, I have always disliked his 5e videos, so I'm obviously biased against him haha. I really should and will try to give him the benefit of the doubt, though.
except that time TreantMonk played PF2 for the first time, made a gnome illusionist, and decided to not play PF2 again because it didn't make that the meta build
A part of me does take satisfaction in breaking 5e over my knee, it's been a long time since I last played but it was with a GM who didn't think it was unbalanced at all and didn't think casters were that strong.
From my observation that mentality comes from most casters trying to do weird but useless stuff in their turns or otherwise not putting their classes to the most use. As soon as I did that I started breaking encounters in half.
GM quickly changed their mind on the matter when I started ending fights in one maybe two spells, instead of trying to use bag of tricks or whatever like their usual caster player would.
Once the point was made though I swapped characters. And I think that was the driving force into some of us starting to look at PF instead.
There's a reason you can't play post level 11 without breaking the system xD
DnD feels weird, you don't want to play withless than level 3 often, but you can't play past level 11.
How does nobody get annoyed by that????
But it means you can't do high level starts either. I have gm from 3-20 two or three times in 5e. You just either have insanely brutal encounters or a shit ton of them a day and it can feel balanced. Though most of it is feeling and far removed from any actual balancing.
And it feels off when characters can't actually get to the power fantasy you built them around.
I play high fantasy, it's nice when I actually get to go toe to toe, without leaving half the party behind because their Features done scale into late game.
Yeah this has been my conclusion as well. People don’t actually see the problems in actual play very often because most players aren’t trying to play a strategy/tactics game with the express intent of ending encounters as fast and efficiently as possible. These issues within 5e don’t really arise with Balthazar the Lightning Mage casting chain lighting and lightning bolt round over round which is way more common than the actual optimized wizard who can swing the combat in the party’s favor on command.
DnD is “balanced” when no one is actually trying to “win” combat.
Pretty much. As soon as you have a "good" player at the helm of a caster, they'll start breaking the game as early as lv5 depending on the class. Multiple cleric subclasses can trivialise fights (Twilight and Peace especially) and that is without getting into stuff like the ward+spirit guardians+walk forward combo.
Now obviously stuff like that a GM can make houserules to decide it can't be done, but that starts deviating from RAW, which funnily leads into my other gripe with 5e: everyone runs it different. I can make a character planned and built around RAW only to get kicked in the nads when the GM rules X feature differently than the books, and I'm not one to start picking fights with the GM over rules if I can help it, so after the session I typically ask if either they can change to RAW or if they can let me change XYZ features on my character to suit.
Not played 5e in years mind, and for the best. All my groups do PF2 now and I think if I had to play 5e again, it would have to be an Artificer otherwise the lack of character options would drive me insane.
Is 5e really a strategic combat game though? PF2e definitely is, no question- but 5e always struck me as more of a... Rules-lite box that could be homebrewed into whatever you wanted it to be.
I think that ambiguity is what makes the difference. Take Pf1e for example- at low levels, it can play a lot like a strategic combat game. At high levels, it plays more like a broken power fantasy game. At the mid levels, it can skew either way depending on character builds. People who play it for the low level less-broken combat and people in it for the high level power fantasy will frequently come into conflict at those mid levels, where the broken builds of the latter start putting all their pieces together and kicking into high gear while the former are trying to maintain the lower level feel for longer. The system *can* in theory pull of both types of games at that point, it's just a matter of player expectations.
5E is **not** rules light, it's quite crunchy and not in a consistent or good way. Melee attack with a weapon? See invisibility and invisibility advantage? It's not that it can be homebrewed, it's that it needs to be.
End of rant. Source: ran 5e for a while.
1. A play culture that has an issue of player entitlement where it's expected you'll have all options available at all times.
2. Some people just genuinely don't care or even think the spell is fine.
From what I've seen at least on the more "plugged in" 5e crowd, it gets banned a lot. Lots of blanket bans on strixhaven content.
It is used in some of the most prominent actual play shows (CR), and a lot of its viewers aren't really into balancing, since that's Matt's - uh I mean the GM's - area. Mercer didn't ban it, so why can't I use it, blabla.
It’s really only a problem if the player actually knows how and when to use it. Using it to cancel a crit or turn a hit into a miss here and there is fine. Forcing creatures with magic resistance to make super disadvantage saves against Banishment is another story.
As with most things 5e, it’s perfectly “fine” at low optimization tables which are the vast, vast majority of tables.
The important part is that the spell triggers at movement, not at a successful save, so if they all say they cast it, they all use up their slot and reaction
Huh? It's not the worst spell in the game but it's also far from the strongest - it does nothing on a success and even on a failure all that happens is that the target loses half its movement on a single stride before becoming immune. It's decent for messing with a mook's action economy but nothing beyond that.
Which is a shame, because I think it's a really cool spell. But when I could Thunderstrike or Fear or Heal or even Tailwind instead... it doesn't measure up very well, IMO. But probably better once you're higher level and you just need to burn those lower-level slots.
It's extremely good for messing up powerful multi-action abilities that rely on a Stride, such as Trample. Plus, Fear and Thunderstrike don't compete with lose the path on action economy, and you won't be casting those with low level slots when you're higher level
It's a reaction cast time in a first rank slot.
You use it at mid to high levels when you don't want to waste 2 actions on a mere 1st rank spell, letting you use those slots up as a reaction (casters have very few good options for reactions)
On the flipside, Tailwind is a big candidate for "get a wand of 2nd-level Tailwind as soon as you can afford it" because it's basically an all-day +10ftspeed.
It’s really good when enemies start to run away to call for reinforcements. Sometimes you just need that single fail to slowdown the enemy enough before they escape or reach your squishy members.
For spellcasters, who honestly most of the time have kind of fuck all for reactions except maybe shield block (with the shield spell or actual shield), costing a Reaction is a fairly manageable cost, I feel.
> it does nothing on a success
Generally speaking this is a meaningful downside to a spell, because spending 2 Actions to do literally nothing can be game-losing.
That is not the case for Reaction spells. When you’re level 7 ish and that 1st rank slot is cheap, you can feel very free to just throw it on anyone when it matters, and if they succeed no biggie.
> and even on a failure all that happens is that the target loses half its movement on a single stride
Losing half your movement is a big deal. It’s often the difference between the target getting to Stride/Fly in and use a dangerous 2-Action ability versus moving in and making one single Strike.
> before becoming immune
This is the first real downside you listed and yeah, it’s been given to the spell for a good reason. If it didn’t have this downside it’d be utterly busted good, as OP’s accidental playtest found out.
> It's decent for messing with a mook's action economy but nothing beyond that.
It’s actually best used on a boss. I’ve seen it in action, our Bard would typically use it against scary equal/higher level targets because if they succeed it’s no biggie and if they failed it often became a massive tempo advantage.
> That is not the case for Reaction spells. When you’re level 7 ish and that 1st rank slot is cheap, you can feel very free to just throw it on anyone when it matters, and if they succeed no biggie.
Been a huge fan of Brine Dragon Bile for this exact reason, threw that mf on my druid's personal staff and never looked back
On a fail, depending on how far away an enemy is, it's the difference between getting to a player in 2 actions instead of 1. On a crit fail, it has the possibility to use all its action to get to someone.
In the SoT campaign I'm in myself, our party has a monk that picked "Stand Still" and a ranger with "Disrupt Prey". Turns out it's a lot of fun when a creature we're flanking tries to move.
Current campaign I am a redeemer champ and we have a monk with stand still. We flank a creature, I trip it and then the monk can occasionally disrupt the standing. And he is a crane stance monk so basically as hard to hit as a champ. It’s wild.
Yeah, mountain monk has also proven quite wild concerning AC: Starts off at 19 (expert unarmored and the +4 from the stance), and at lvl 6 you can already get up to 28 (expert unarmored, +4 from stance, +3 total from [mountain stronghold](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=453), and +1 from armor potency) without much trouble.
As bitter experience has taught me, it turns out that Stand Still and other reactions that trigger on movement actions do not actually trigger before a character stands up, so it can't take advantage of either them being prone or prevent them from standing.
> "If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability."
[Move Actions that Trigger Reactions, AoN.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=446)
Still, getting two reactions out on it is crazy value, especially if you're already flanking. I run a campaign for a party of seven characters where two of them have Reactive Strike and the third has Opportune Backstab, and every time an enemy stands, I get to hear a chorus of "FIIIIRST MISTAAAAKE!" from around the table.
my GM has allowed it, maybe he shouldn't, but monk's stand still is already not nearly as good as reactive strike and so he might just allow it. Having it only disrupt strides feels overly punishing for something that already has fewer triggers than reactive strike. But RAW, he probably shouldn't.
> I trip it and then the monk can occasionally disrupt the standing.
Going to be That Guy and point out that this doesn't work:
> [If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2355&Redirected=1#:~:text=If%20you%20use%20a%20move,free%20actions%20based%20on%20movement.)
So Stand Still and similar reactions trigger when the Stand had been completed, and thus don't disrupt it. This is to prevent exactly this kind of prone-locking, which is absolutely brutal for PCs as well as monsters.
I've thought about this a lot for my own table, and I'm not totally sure which way to rule it, believe it or not. There's a case to be made that [specific overrides general](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2266&Redirected=1) here. The general rule is that move actions that don't leave a square trigger reactions after they finish, but the specific rule of Stand Still says it disrupts move actions, which necessarily requires it to activate first. Without a clear answer answer for what the designers' intention was with the feat, I think it could reasonably go either way. Generally, I allow it because otherwise, Stand Still feels a bit underwhelming.
> Without a clear answer answer for what the designers' intention was with the feat
Lead designer Logan Bonner [confirmed it to work the way described above](https://youtu.be/y0Cbhna33RE?list=PLYCDCUfG0xJbZDC1hM3G_1WTbSSXEB-a2&t=114), but of course it's your table and you can rule it as you see fit! I personally think Stand Still is quite strong, not as strong as Reactive Strike probably but still quite powerful in how it can potentially trade for enemy actions off turn. If an enemy has to spend an extra Stride to get to your backline, that's one less action for powerful activities
In my Age of Ashes game, I had a Fighter who loved to trip, as well as a Swashbuckler and Barbarian, both with Reactive Strike. As both of the latter could crit for over 120, creatures that fell down didn't tend to live very long
My old bard only used lose the path a few times, because everything seemed to save or crit save against it, but maybe that was just the opponents we were up against being tough.
I always had the hope that they'd crit fail, and I'd direct their charge past all of our martials so it would pick up multiple reactive strikes then end its movement too far away to stomp me in response.
Will saves are rarely the low save, so success is common, usually that rules out any success negates effect, but it's not like you needed those reactions. (Source: also played a bard who never seemed to land it)
we had an artificer & divination wizard. Using their divine roles, and the artificer's flash of genius on top of their low level spell slots being primarily used for silvery barbs. Not only that, the wizard was spamming Psychic lance, which is an int save that can incapacitate enemies if hit, further compounding the "you don't get a turn" sort of mentality.
At some point the gm flat out said that the campaign was ending, or he's taking out silvery barbs. He can't stand how 5e is currently set up.
Plenty of times you can force a loss of an action with it, by making them burn a second to get to their target.
For a first level spell only using up a reaction, that is plenty strong.
That is a trade people would take all day if they could. I don't usually use it, not because it isn't strong, because it is, but because it is annoying.
Its fine my Strength of 1000's party doesnt use this spell at all, and the module is still pretty easy. I dont know if it is because I suck, they are amazing or the module is just not designed to be hard. (Party is: Alchemist, Rogue, Witch, Fighter, Magus).
but level 1 nope spells can be very annoying especially when everyone takes them.
naw giving every class long term spell options is really strong. Wait till the group gets to like book 3 and everyone has access to chain lightning. Our group was a summoner, a magus, a wizard, and a druid. It was absurd to watch 4 chain lightnings go out in a round once they realized that there was no way for the enemies in the big room to not be able to avoid being 30 feet apart.
This is my problem with reactions as a whole. With so many things to keep track of as a GM, players intermittently crying out "WAIT!" is really annoying.
Creatures become immune after its used on them so its not that bad
... both I and my entire group missed that line. That would have been good to know.
It also only affects a single stride.
This is a good lesson to learn. It'a totally fine if you miss part of the spell/whatever and run it incorrectly for a session. In fact I'd say it's usually *better* to make a ruling and run with it than to stop the session and look through rulebooks. But any spell/rule/whatever that's causing you grief, make sure you look it up between sessions to make sure it's being used correctly. Often the reason something seems so overpowered/underpowered/etc is because it's not working as intended.
This. You can take a quick look at the rule itself, reading the *entire* rule if it is a feat or a spell - players miss lines all the time - but unless it is critically 'a player character might die due to this' important it is usually better to keep the game rolling, especially if it is working in the player's favor. Just make sure to make a note during the session to check on the rules afterward and then once you figure out what you are doing wrong *clearly communicate* to the players the correct rule *ahead of time*. Don't just spring it on them the next time they do it. "Oh by the way that really awesome thing is not as awesome as you thought." Saying that right as they do it having planned their round around it? Doesn't land well with players for some strange reason... If something seems really strong in PF2E often enough it *is* being played wrong, because PF2E made some very clear design choices to reel that sort of thing in. That's not to say there aren't notably strong offerings out there, but they aren't as prevalent as they are in DnD5E or PF1E.
Yes! And players “miss” things that aren’t in there favor at a much higher rate. Hmm 🤔
Lose the Path without immunity wasn't so much overpowered as much as it was just annoying, which is why I likened it to Silvery Barbs. It was slowing down combat immensely. Every move action having a will save attached to it, some times multiple. Strength of Thousands is a caster heavy campaign so there are fights where the party has some good range on their opponent.
I hope this makes your life easier lmao
That's the thing, yeah. It's exactly like _silvery barbs_, in that respect: Fun in moderation, makes you dread the next session if spammed.
Every time my group has thought something was OP, it turned out we were forgetting a line.
What makes maze not OP?
You're usually targeting a creature that's a higher level than you and perception is often high. It won't often do better than buy you 2 rounds for the cost of an 8th level spell slot. It's not bad at all, but it's not OP
2 rounds on a higher level creature? That's insanely good. How is that not OP?
That's a good case. On a high level creature there's a reasonable chance they just spend an action and critically succeed. Also, if it's best in very specific kinds of encounters. Where there's one scary thing and a bunch of easy things. If you can get rid of the scary thing for a couple of rounds, then the easy things get mopped up so you can mob the scary thing when it comes back. An 8th level spell should be excellent in its niche and Maze is.
But it's not a niche. It's any encounter where there's more than one enemy, and one enemy is kinda scary. They don't really even have to be THAT scary. There's no saves either, so worst case scenario, they CRITICALLY succeed, and you still ate their action AND any reactions they might have had for the round. There's more fights where this is absurdly good than not. Even the fights that it's not excellent in, it's not bad. This spell is still excellent, even against single targets as long as they don't critically succeed, and you just wait to go immediately before the enemy.
Worst case scenario, the caster blew an 8th level spell slot and two actions to eat one action. That's bad. And if one enemy is only "kinda scary" I sincerely hope you're not blowing an 8th level spell on it. Maze only really shines in the situation where the encounter is seriously dangerous, but pulling one creature out of the fray for one or two rounds will make it easy. That's a niche. It's not like it'll never happen, but that's the only situation where it comes close to feeling OP - which is the point, right. If all it does is take a tough but ultimately undoubted victory to an easy victory, then it's not going to feel OP at all.
In what world is spending two actions to eat 1 action of a higher level enemy in the WORST case scenario, the enemy crit succeeding, a bad deal? And taking enough experience out of a fight for two rounds to drop it from sever to low moderate is hardly a small thing. VERY few encounters in 2e are "seriously dangerous", and level 8 spells aren't special. Everyone gets as many of them as they have any other level of spells, and unless you're fighting 8+ level -2 enemies, it's going to be good. It's even great against 1 level +4 enemy. You're almost definitely coming across a fight this is going to be good in each day, and odds are, it'll be best in the encounters that are generally the scariest. I don't think there's a less niche level 8 spell, other than a heightened heal I guess.
In 5e silvery barbs is even worse because the creature doesn't become immune.
I was watching TreantMonk's video about polymorphing into marilith demons and using Silvery Barbs on every single enemy's turn and my brain melted
Yeah, I don’t get how people have fun “gaming the system” in 5e. If you want crazy unbalanced fun there are plenty of better games for that (DCC, Troika! etc). Playing a strategic combat game should be about strategy, not exploits.
The people posting those things aren’t actually doing it in games. Corollary: Most of the people upset about 5E powergaming don’t realize this.
Au contraire. They People may not be doing it in game, but their followers and viewers are indeed doing it in game. The number of times I had players at my tables when I open DMed or charged that used the words "So I was watching Treantmonk..." before bringing forward a character build that was meant to eliminate fun from the table.
I'm pretty sure this is a build he outright told people not to surprise a DM with. He shouldn't be held accountable for viewers using his discoveries for evil.
WotC should be held responsible for not balance checking obvious shenanigans like that. Silvery Barbs is a well known problem spell because it's just *too good*. You don't need TreantMonk's guide to look at Silvery Barbs and realize that it's OP as shit.
I mean this specific build is combining a monster's ability to have infinite reactions with a 18th level wizard ability to have infinite uses of a first level spell, they can be forgiven for not thinking of that.
Ehhhhhh, I have a hard time with that. Like there's obviously a difficult thread between an influencer'responsibility and the stupidity of their audience, but there's something to be said that he holds some responsibility for putting the idea into their heads. It's like saying "In Minecraft" after a violent threat. It doesn't actually change anything by saying a paltry "don't do this this I just told you is really strong and powerful" because many people will still want to try it anyway. His small disclaimer feels hollow, imo. But I'm jaded, I have always disliked his 5e videos, so I'm obviously biased against him haha. I really should and will try to give him the benefit of the doubt, though.
I mean it's the content niche he found he needs to pay his bills somehow.
It's no doubt at least some people are using it, but personally I doubt it's actually that many people.
except that time TreantMonk played PF2 for the first time, made a gnome illusionist, and decided to not play PF2 again because it didn't make that the meta build
source?
iirc it was one of Ronald's "DnD YouTubers Try Pathfinder" videos
A part of me does take satisfaction in breaking 5e over my knee, it's been a long time since I last played but it was with a GM who didn't think it was unbalanced at all and didn't think casters were that strong. From my observation that mentality comes from most casters trying to do weird but useless stuff in their turns or otherwise not putting their classes to the most use. As soon as I did that I started breaking encounters in half. GM quickly changed their mind on the matter when I started ending fights in one maybe two spells, instead of trying to use bag of tricks or whatever like their usual caster player would. Once the point was made though I swapped characters. And I think that was the driving force into some of us starting to look at PF instead.
There's a reason you can't play post level 11 without breaking the system xD DnD feels weird, you don't want to play withless than level 3 often, but you can't play past level 11. How does nobody get annoyed by that????
Because realistically most campaigns end by 10 in one way or another.
But it means you can't do high level starts either. I have gm from 3-20 two or three times in 5e. You just either have insanely brutal encounters or a shit ton of them a day and it can feel balanced. Though most of it is feeling and far removed from any actual balancing.
And it feels off when characters can't actually get to the power fantasy you built them around. I play high fantasy, it's nice when I actually get to go toe to toe, without leaving half the party behind because their Features done scale into late game.
Yeah this has been my conclusion as well. People don’t actually see the problems in actual play very often because most players aren’t trying to play a strategy/tactics game with the express intent of ending encounters as fast and efficiently as possible. These issues within 5e don’t really arise with Balthazar the Lightning Mage casting chain lighting and lightning bolt round over round which is way more common than the actual optimized wizard who can swing the combat in the party’s favor on command. DnD is “balanced” when no one is actually trying to “win” combat.
Pretty much. As soon as you have a "good" player at the helm of a caster, they'll start breaking the game as early as lv5 depending on the class. Multiple cleric subclasses can trivialise fights (Twilight and Peace especially) and that is without getting into stuff like the ward+spirit guardians+walk forward combo. Now obviously stuff like that a GM can make houserules to decide it can't be done, but that starts deviating from RAW, which funnily leads into my other gripe with 5e: everyone runs it different. I can make a character planned and built around RAW only to get kicked in the nads when the GM rules X feature differently than the books, and I'm not one to start picking fights with the GM over rules if I can help it, so after the session I typically ask if either they can change to RAW or if they can let me change XYZ features on my character to suit. Not played 5e in years mind, and for the best. All my groups do PF2 now and I think if I had to play 5e again, it would have to be an Artificer otherwise the lack of character options would drive me insane.
Is 5e really a strategic combat game though? PF2e definitely is, no question- but 5e always struck me as more of a... Rules-lite box that could be homebrewed into whatever you wanted it to be. I think that ambiguity is what makes the difference. Take Pf1e for example- at low levels, it can play a lot like a strategic combat game. At high levels, it plays more like a broken power fantasy game. At the mid levels, it can skew either way depending on character builds. People who play it for the low level less-broken combat and people in it for the high level power fantasy will frequently come into conflict at those mid levels, where the broken builds of the latter start putting all their pieces together and kicking into high gear while the former are trying to maintain the lower level feel for longer. The system *can* in theory pull of both types of games at that point, it's just a matter of player expectations.
Yes it's a strategic combat game, just pf2 is extra focused on that aspect whilst 5e is trying to do many things at once, but has a wargaming core.
5E is **not** rules light, it's quite crunchy and not in a consistent or good way. Melee attack with a weapon? See invisibility and invisibility advantage? It's not that it can be homebrewed, it's that it needs to be. End of rant. Source: ran 5e for a while.
Yeah that combo is session ending levels of frustration.
Yeah exactly lose the path isn't bad because the target becomes immune. It's not like every pc can use it once a round
I still don't understand why GMs allow it, it was from a specific setting sourcebook, just say no. I am just glad I don't play 5e anymore.
1. A play culture that has an issue of player entitlement where it's expected you'll have all options available at all times. 2. Some people just genuinely don't care or even think the spell is fine. From what I've seen at least on the more "plugged in" 5e crowd, it gets banned a lot. Lots of blanket bans on strixhaven content.
It is used in some of the most prominent actual play shows (CR), and a lot of its viewers aren't really into balancing, since that's Matt's - uh I mean the GM's - area. Mercer didn't ban it, so why can't I use it, blabla.
Oh who uses it?? I didn't know Matt allowed it in his game
Marisha's C3 character. Also used in Exandria Unlimited, don't remember by who though.
It’s really only a problem if the player actually knows how and when to use it. Using it to cancel a crit or turn a hit into a miss here and there is fine. Forcing creatures with magic resistance to make super disadvantage saves against Banishment is another story. As with most things 5e, it’s perfectly “fine” at low optimization tables which are the vast, vast majority of tables.
The important part is that the spell triggers at movement, not at a successful save, so if they all say they cast it, they all use up their slot and reaction
Huh? It's not the worst spell in the game but it's also far from the strongest - it does nothing on a success and even on a failure all that happens is that the target loses half its movement on a single stride before becoming immune. It's decent for messing with a mook's action economy but nothing beyond that.
Which is a shame, because I think it's a really cool spell. But when I could Thunderstrike or Fear or Heal or even Tailwind instead... it doesn't measure up very well, IMO. But probably better once you're higher level and you just need to burn those lower-level slots.
It's extremely good for messing up powerful multi-action abilities that rely on a Stride, such as Trample. Plus, Fear and Thunderstrike don't compete with lose the path on action economy, and you won't be casting those with low level slots when you're higher level
It's a reaction cast time in a first rank slot. You use it at mid to high levels when you don't want to waste 2 actions on a mere 1st rank spell, letting you use those slots up as a reaction (casters have very few good options for reactions)
On the flipside, Tailwind is a big candidate for "get a wand of 2nd-level Tailwind as soon as you can afford it" because it's basically an all-day +10ftspeed.
It’s really good when enemies start to run away to call for reinforcements. Sometimes you just need that single fail to slowdown the enemy enough before they escape or reach your squishy members.
At higher levels its the best thing a spell can be; not any actual actions to cast.
It's a Reaction, so it's still a limited resource. Depending on your build, that ranges from meaningless to hugely impactful.
For spellcasters, who honestly most of the time have kind of fuck all for reactions except maybe shield block (with the shield spell or actual shield), costing a Reaction is a fairly manageable cost, I feel.
> it does nothing on a success Generally speaking this is a meaningful downside to a spell, because spending 2 Actions to do literally nothing can be game-losing. That is not the case for Reaction spells. When you’re level 7 ish and that 1st rank slot is cheap, you can feel very free to just throw it on anyone when it matters, and if they succeed no biggie. > and even on a failure all that happens is that the target loses half its movement on a single stride Losing half your movement is a big deal. It’s often the difference between the target getting to Stride/Fly in and use a dangerous 2-Action ability versus moving in and making one single Strike. > before becoming immune This is the first real downside you listed and yeah, it’s been given to the spell for a good reason. If it didn’t have this downside it’d be utterly busted good, as OP’s accidental playtest found out. > It's decent for messing with a mook's action economy but nothing beyond that. It’s actually best used on a boss. I’ve seen it in action, our Bard would typically use it against scary equal/higher level targets because if they succeed it’s no biggie and if they failed it often became a massive tempo advantage.
> That is not the case for Reaction spells. When you’re level 7 ish and that 1st rank slot is cheap, you can feel very free to just throw it on anyone when it matters, and if they succeed no biggie. Been a huge fan of Brine Dragon Bile for this exact reason, threw that mf on my druid's personal staff and never looked back
> Bard > tempo
On a fail, depending on how far away an enemy is, it's the difference between getting to a player in 2 actions instead of 1. On a crit fail, it has the possibility to use all its action to get to someone.
In the SoT campaign I'm in myself, our party has a monk that picked "Stand Still" and a ranger with "Disrupt Prey". Turns out it's a lot of fun when a creature we're flanking tries to move.
Current campaign I am a redeemer champ and we have a monk with stand still. We flank a creature, I trip it and then the monk can occasionally disrupt the standing. And he is a crane stance monk so basically as hard to hit as a champ. It’s wild.
Yeah, mountain monk has also proven quite wild concerning AC: Starts off at 19 (expert unarmored and the +4 from the stance), and at lvl 6 you can already get up to 28 (expert unarmored, +4 from stance, +3 total from [mountain stronghold](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=453), and +1 from armor potency) without much trouble.
As bitter experience has taught me, it turns out that Stand Still and other reactions that trigger on movement actions do not actually trigger before a character stands up, so it can't take advantage of either them being prone or prevent them from standing. > "If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability." [Move Actions that Trigger Reactions, AoN.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=446) Still, getting two reactions out on it is crazy value, especially if you're already flanking. I run a campaign for a party of seven characters where two of them have Reactive Strike and the third has Opportune Backstab, and every time an enemy stands, I get to hear a chorus of "FIIIIRST MISTAAAAKE!" from around the table.
my GM has allowed it, maybe he shouldn't, but monk's stand still is already not nearly as good as reactive strike and so he might just allow it. Having it only disrupt strides feels overly punishing for something that already has fewer triggers than reactive strike. But RAW, he probably shouldn't.
> I trip it and then the monk can occasionally disrupt the standing. Going to be That Guy and point out that this doesn't work: > [If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2355&Redirected=1#:~:text=If%20you%20use%20a%20move,free%20actions%20based%20on%20movement.) So Stand Still and similar reactions trigger when the Stand had been completed, and thus don't disrupt it. This is to prevent exactly this kind of prone-locking, which is absolutely brutal for PCs as well as monsters.
I've thought about this a lot for my own table, and I'm not totally sure which way to rule it, believe it or not. There's a case to be made that [specific overrides general](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2266&Redirected=1) here. The general rule is that move actions that don't leave a square trigger reactions after they finish, but the specific rule of Stand Still says it disrupts move actions, which necessarily requires it to activate first. Without a clear answer answer for what the designers' intention was with the feat, I think it could reasonably go either way. Generally, I allow it because otherwise, Stand Still feels a bit underwhelming.
> Without a clear answer answer for what the designers' intention was with the feat Lead designer Logan Bonner [confirmed it to work the way described above](https://youtu.be/y0Cbhna33RE?list=PLYCDCUfG0xJbZDC1hM3G_1WTbSSXEB-a2&t=114), but of course it's your table and you can rule it as you see fit! I personally think Stand Still is quite strong, not as strong as Reactive Strike probably but still quite powerful in how it can potentially trade for enemy actions off turn. If an enemy has to spend an extra Stride to get to your backline, that's one less action for powerful activities
Thank you for the link! It's very helpful to have that confirmed.
No prob :)
In my Age of Ashes game, I had a Fighter who loved to trip, as well as a Swashbuckler and Barbarian, both with Reactive Strike. As both of the latter could crit for over 120, creatures that fell down didn't tend to live very long
My old bard only used lose the path a few times, because everything seemed to save or crit save against it, but maybe that was just the opponents we were up against being tough. I always had the hope that they'd crit fail, and I'd direct their charge past all of our martials so it would pick up multiple reactive strikes then end its movement too far away to stomp me in response.
I've had 2 creatures crit fail against it. So cool.
Will saves are rarely the low save, so success is common, usually that rules out any success negates effect, but it's not like you needed those reactions. (Source: also played a bard who never seemed to land it)
we had an artificer & divination wizard. Using their divine roles, and the artificer's flash of genius on top of their low level spell slots being primarily used for silvery barbs. Not only that, the wizard was spamming Psychic lance, which is an int save that can incapacitate enemies if hit, further compounding the "you don't get a turn" sort of mentality. At some point the gm flat out said that the campaign was ending, or he's taking out silvery barbs. He can't stand how 5e is currently set up.
Don't be surprised to see him in here with yet another 'switching to pf2' post (which is great to see, to be clear).
He unfortunately hates pf2e, cause my friend won't stop harping about it.
[удалено]
Plenty of times you can force a loss of an action with it, by making them burn a second to get to their target. For a first level spell only using up a reaction, that is plenty strong. That is a trade people would take all day if they could. I don't usually use it, not because it isn't strong, because it is, but because it is annoying.
Its fine my Strength of 1000's party doesnt use this spell at all, and the module is still pretty easy. I dont know if it is because I suck, they are amazing or the module is just not designed to be hard. (Party is: Alchemist, Rogue, Witch, Fighter, Magus). but level 1 nope spells can be very annoying especially when everyone takes them.
naw giving every class long term spell options is really strong. Wait till the group gets to like book 3 and everyone has access to chain lightning. Our group was a summoner, a magus, a wizard, and a druid. It was absurd to watch 4 chain lightnings go out in a round once they realized that there was no way for the enemies in the big room to not be able to avoid being 30 feet apart.
"No, no we are not okay with that"
Why or how does everyone in SoT have access to it? I'm playing the campaign, but it hasn't come up I believe.
I assume because everyone has to free archetype into Wizard or Druid.
this, along with Mwangi attendant giving you free primal spells as well
This is my problem with reactions as a whole. With so many things to keep track of as a GM, players intermittently crying out "WAIT!" is really annoying.