Talk:Vihar (5e Race)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Balance of Storm Conduit[edit]

This is the third time I've had to re-add the same {{needsbalance}} template. Dark Dragon if you remove it again without addressing the issue you're going to receive a warning as per the Help:Warning Policy. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2018 (MDT)

I've addressed it twice now. The first was in the edit summary when I removed the balance template the first time, and the second was when I rebalanced the ability again. As previously stated, I've playtested this race and had others playtest it several times and have found it to be reasonable and not game breaking for any of the the games it has been used in. Additionally, the ability in question can now only be used on one attack per round of combat. I don't see a balance issue with that as it further limits the ability than originally intended. Thus, I removed the balance tag again. --Dark Dragon (talk)
It is clearly not balanced and to better explain that viewpoint, let us compare this racial trait to the Cleric's Divine Strike feature, that allows you to do almost the exact same thing. The differences are, Storm Conduit is available earlier and it on average deals more damage. While this may seem minor initially we are comparing a racial trait and an 8th/14th level class feature. As I said in the template I'd recommend taking this down to a single use ability recharging on a short or long rest. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2018 (MDT)
I have to firmly disagree. Let's do a 1-to-1 comparison, shall we?.
  • Storm Conduit (SC) can add 1d4 lightning damage to a single attack per turn, while Divine Strike (DS) can ad 1d8 radiant damage to a single attack per turn.
  • SC is available at 1st level, dealing 1d4(2) and increases to 2d4(4) at 5th, 3d4(6) at 11th, and 4d4(8) 17th level, following catrip progression. DS is available at 8th level, dealing 1d8(4) and increases to 2d8(8) at 14th. Ultimately, the two are equal in damage dealing power.
  • SC deals lightning damage, a damage type to which exactly 35 creatures in the Monster Manuel have Resistance to, 10 have Immunity to, and 0 have Vulnerability to, whereas radiant damage is a damage type that exactly 4 creatures in the Monster Manuel have Resistance to, 0 have Immunity to, and 2 have Vulnerability to. And because it is not a spell, the Elemental Adept feat has no bearing on it, meaning that unless the DM creates a special item, class, or boon, the lightning damage cannot overcome reduction or negation.
  • SC effectiveness is limited to martial focused melee characters (Paladin, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Bladelock, etc...) since it can only be activated on an unarmed strike or on an attack from a metal weapon (Which immediately excludes several weapons like slings and bows from being able to proc this ability). Thus, most casters, unless they take a specific archetype (Pact of the Blade Warlock, Valor Bard, or Bladesinger Wizard), won't be able to use it since they'ed be out of melee range anyway. The only way for it to be remotely useful for casters is for them to forego an Ability Score Improvement and take the Turbidovir racial feat, which might not even be allowed depending on the game since feats are optional. Furthermore, even if the player is allowed to take the racial feat, it only works on spells that already deal lightning damage and still only procs once per turn, so sorcerers with quickened spell can't abuse it. DS is a cleric only ability, but most of the cleric archetypes get it and the ones that do are generally front to midline fighters and doesn't require a feat for it to be effective.
  • Druids specifically would rarely be able to use this ability since they can't use metal weapons or armor and, as stated before, would likely not be at the front of a combat encounter. Additionally, Druid cannot active SC in wildshape at the moment unless I decide to make another feat to allow it, which again still might not even be allowed since feats are optional.
So as you can see, SC and DC are equal at the least, with either being slightly more powerful than the other, but which is more powerful is entirely based on the situation (Though it is my personal option that DS is still superior, if only by a small margin). Therefore, unless you can explain to me, in similar fashion as I have done for you, why this ability is unbalanced, I will be removing the {{needsbalance}} template in 2 days, since I have now thoroughly explain my stance, provided ample defense for it, actually played with the race through several different class combinations and found it to be fine in every iteration, and have stayed within the rules of removing the {{needsbalance}} template. --Dark Dragon (talk)
I have explained in ample fashion and you yourself have said they are at least equal. They also stack together which isn't very good for your point of it being a relatively balanced trait. If anything you've only further outlined the questionability of such a trait in this explanation. This is still in comparison to an 8th and 14th level class feature mind you so no, this is not comparatively balanced and you should endeavor to create content that is comparable to that of the first party. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
Then we simply aren't going to agree, because as I have said before, I and my players have played each version of the race several times (7 full/ongoing campaigns of varying lengths, and about 10 PCs and over 25 Friendly to Hostile NPCs) and found them to be perfectly fine. Most notably, the latest incarnation of the ability has been the most balanced out of every version and for me, playtesting and gauging how well something works in-game by actually using it in game is more effective than theoretical assessments. However, I will remove the 11th and 17th level dice increase, If only to end this debate now because I'm simply tired of going back and forth with you. --Dark Dragon (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2018 (MDT)
As I have stated in the maintenance template, I recommend limiting this to a single-use trait that recharges on short rest and then increasing the damage to be similar the dragonborns breath weapon. It keeps the original flavor and maintains it in a balanced fashion. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2018 (MDT)

ummm....CL is correct about the issue with conduit thingy. Races don’t get an unlimited use of bonus damage on attacks. I too think the trait should be a short rest cooldown like other SRD race traits. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2018 (MDT)

I, personally, don't have any problem with the ability. I do have some observations, however. But first, let me assess the stated issues so far:

  • Storm Conduit is comparable in behavior to an 8th level Cleric feature, Divine Strike. -stated by ConcealedLight
It's also comparable to Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade, Shillelagh, Shocking Grasp, Ensnaring Strike, Inflict Wounds, Searing Smite, Wrathful Smite, Branding Smite, Flame Blade, Magic Weapon, Shadow Blade, Spiritual Weapon, Branding Smite, Elemental Weapon, Flame Arrows, Holy Weapon, etc. all which range from cantrips to level 5 spells and can be compared in some aspect to Storm Conduit, but are not quite identical. Just like Divine Strike. Saying something is comparable to something else is not an argument. It might imply an argument, but when that implication is not understood by your opponent and you refuse to clarify it when they request, I'm sorry, but you are in the wrong.
  • Races don't get an unlimited use of bonus damage on attacks. -stated by BigShotFancyMan
This is true. There is no race that demonstrates this specific effect, thus, it does break precedent. However, there are examples of races with highly comparable effects. Bugbears can deal 2d6 additional damage to a surprised creature on their first turn of combat, once per combat. While conditional, it does not require a rest to restore. Likewise, half-orcs gain an additional damage die to add to their attack when they score a critical hit, also requiring no rest to restore. And finally, perhaps the best example of all, is the Longtooth Shifter (Eberron race/subrace). While technically, this effect is limited by a short rest, it is also the most powerful of the examples listed. A Shifter can use a bonus action to shift, gaining bonus hit points equal to their level plus their constitution mod., plus a special feature. This shifted form lasts for a maximum duration of 1 minute, and, during that minute, the Longtooth Shifter can use it's feature to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action which deals 1d6 + their strength modifier piercing damage. The maximum possible bonus damage dealt in that time period is 125 with a chance of occurrance of 0.00000000000000000000000000002671% (2.671*10^-29%). For a more realistic number, the average is 34 to 35 total bonus damage for that minute.
One of the very first things you can read on the bounded accuracy page states that it has nothing to do with damage, only the frequency in which that damage is delivered. As Storm Conduit does not alter the frequency at which a hit is landed, this point is erroneous in nature, or, at the very least, poorly elaborated on.

Now, for my observations! It is well-known that some races and classes have features that synergize in an unprecedented manner. Unprecedented, as in: This is the most optimum configuration for what you are trying to build that is possible in the game. Some notable synergies that are relevant to this discussion are bugbear + rogue (bugbears have proficiency in stealth, and the aforementioned surprise attack coupled with the rogue's sneak attack creates a powerful damage synergy) and kobold + rogue (pack tactics grant advantage on attacks if ally is near, sneak attack triggers on advantage). Both deal a large amount of bonus damage, but the difference is how they do it. The bugbear deals that large amount of damage (normal attack + 3d6) at the beginning of the combat encounter upon the meeting of a moderately-difficult condition, while the kobold deals smaller, but still significant amounts of damage (normal attack + 1d6) over the course of the entire battle, assuming a rather easy condition is met. Now, take a look at the Turbidovir. With the Storm Conduit ability, a condition so easy it might as well be nonexistent allows for an even smaller amount of damage (normal attack + 1d4) than the kobold does. No matter what, the Turbidovir will never be as synergistic in this role as the kobold or the bugbear, even with the original damage scaling of Storm Conduit was kept. If you want proof of this, compare the damage scaling of Storm Conduit to the damage scaling of Sneak Attack, and then note that the bugbear's first attack and all the kobold's attacks are made with advantage, which essentially doubles the chance of getting a hit.
However, this does not necessarily mean Storm Conduit is weaker. In fact, it's perfectly balanced. How? Visualize it on a spectrum with the other two examples and you'll see it. The bugbear synergy has the most damage, but is also the most inconsistent. The kobold synergy has a lower damage than the bugbear, but is waaay more consistent. And finally, Storm Conduit. It has the lowest damage, but is by far the most consistent. The measurement of consistency, in this case, being the sum of all factors that affect whether or not the effect will occur, such as rate, setup required, difficulty of conditions to fulfill, advantage/disadvantage, etc.
So, it is balanced. Why are people getting so mad? Because it creates that new synergy. Before this was created, your only option for the highest consistency extra damage was that kobold + rogue build (an aside: also existing on the spectrum, with slightly higher damage but of debatedly slightly lower consistency would be some build involving the Longtooth Shifter I mentioned addressing BigShotFancyMan's comment). But now, there's a new optimum build for that, and it incorporates this guy (this assumes that you are not taking any other homebrew content into consideration. Which, you shouldn't. It's literally the first paragraph of the precedent). Now all sorts of builds are possible that could strive to incorporate and refine this brand new strategy of valuing low risk, low reward bonus damage!
Obviously martial classes would benefit most from being this race, as Storm Conduit applies to melee attacks only. However, it's not a game changer; a notable drawback is that martial classes would not benefit greatly from the charisma increase of the Turbidovir, which is an obvious trade-off a player would have to make over choosing a race with ability score increases and features more suiting a martial class, such as the half-orc or human variant. This means that players who choose the Turbidovir race either will do so because they like the fluff, or because they're optimizing for that low risk, low reward bonus damage. If the latter is the case, the most obvious synergy occurring to me, perhaps even the most optimal, would be with the fighter brute archetype, who, at 3rd level, gains an extra 1d4 damage (scaling with level..!) to attacks made with weapons they are proficient in. You'd think this build would overpower and surpass the kobold+rogue combo, however, I ran the numbers (proof), and even with this synergy, the OG kobold+rogue combo still does more damage.
...
So, yeah. In conclusion, it's not overpowered, it just adds more complexity to the game; it's fiiiiiiine. —ZarHakkar (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

Comparing this to Bugbear is apple and oranges. You have to surprise the creature-which is highly DM dependent. The frequency in which these two traits can occur are just not the same, just like the orcs trait. there's a 5% chance the orc can use their trait. 5%!!!! and you compare this to SC which triggers on a melee hit? It is just not comparable. Then you use long tooth, as comparison but you realize that long tooth is limited, AND costs a bonus action? again, a trait that does not compare to the unlimited benefit of an extra 1d4 damage on a melee. It is a very simple conditional benefit compared to the three examples.
with regards to that first point's rebuttal, those things cost a resource- bonus action or action. Spells are not just free bits of damage that are allowed to be tacked onto damage. At its current writing of this edit, I find it the most appropriate. I really like the race as it currently (08:29, 28 September 2018 (MDT)) stands. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
Thanks. Hopefully, it ends the debate. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
I wouldn't be surprised if I lot of people didn't read all the way through what I posted. It is long. However, in doing so, you've missed my point. All of the examples I brought up exist on a sliding scale of damage and consistency for bonus damage. Yes, there's a 5% chance that an orc can use it's trait, which probably ends up doing more damage than the bugbear. Likewise, the bugbear's trait is probably more likely to be applicable than the orc's, with less damage. Then you have the Longtooth Shifter, then the kobold+rogue combo. The former, which you sorely misunderstood, and the latter, which you didn't address. The Longtooth Shifter uses a bonus action to make that 1d6 + str. mod. attack, which means it can do a normal attack, than that attack. To demonstrate, let's give a Longtooth Shifter and a Turbidovir a shortsword, and see who does more damage in a single round:
  • Longtooth Shifter: 1d8 + str. mod. + 1d6 + str. mod.
  • Turbidovir: 1d8 + str. mod. + 1d4
As you can see, one of these values clearly does more damage.
I will pull out the spreadsheet and math this up to prove that Storm Conduit is balanced. But, honestly, I really shouldn't have to. Between Dark Dragon's extensive playtesting and what I've written previously, there should be more than enough evidence to demonstrate that fact. —ZarHakkar (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
Please, I read the whole post. I didn't address the kobold+"x" because I find it moot/irrelevant. I do not misunderstand what is being said here. I think there is a greater issue but that's beside the point. Let me correct what's above:
  • Longtooth Shifter: 1d6+str
  • Turbidovir:1d6+str+1d4
that is how to compare that. The extra stuff as a bonus action is separate. I hope that helps. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
My bad, I got so caught up in the other stuff I mixed up the values for shortsword and longsword. A tiny error. But alas, on the other issue: I've said all I can to persuade others. Pressing the point any further will only cause annoyance, so I'll quit while we're all ahead. Sorry Dark, I tried. —ZarHakkar (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

In my opinion it's better gameplay to have single-use fair-damage bonus than an every-turn weak-damage bonus (or a single-use with a weak bonus that lasts 1 minute). Firstly, it adds another decision; secondly it's one less thing to remember to do every turn. Or else, have some mitigating factor that limits its use (on an opportunity attack only; on a turn you move more than 20 feet; etc). Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

As do I. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2018 (MDT)

Race Name[edit]

As an aside, does the name of the race have any significance or meaning? I ask because literally the only issue I have with this race is that the name is really hard to remember. I kept having to refer back to the name every single time I wanted to use it in that big block of text up there. Maybe consider a change? I mean, I don't know... it's just a suggestion. —ZarHakkar (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

I like this idea too. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
The name literally means Storm-Man in latin. No significance otherwise. Don't really know how to change names, but when I can I will. Any suggestions? --Dark Dragon (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
it’s cheesy but Stormling. Highest caste is stormlord. Trying to think of elemental friendly name too. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
What about Vihar (Vee - har)? It's Hungarian for storm and it's a easier to remember. Plus it sounds nifty. (***Side Note:*** How would I change the name without making a new page?) --Dark Dragon (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
Instead of clicking edit, look 3 or 4 tabs to the right and click move. Choose the new name (remember the 5e race identifier), click move :)
P.S. That name is a good improvement!--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

Stub[edit]

I know that a stub can be added for anything an editor thinks is missing, but I think it should be removed. Quite simply, I think that not every race needs a history section, the OP has abandoned this race, and the stub stops it from displaying in DPLs. If there's no other issues with it, I see no reason to keep it removed from DPLs since the OP is unlikely to add history, and its inclusion — while welcome for some — is a minor detail likely to be changed by DMs anyway.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

Ummm, I am the OP and I'm fairly certain I haven't abandoned the page...--Dark Dragon (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2018 (MDT)
My apologies. I was just basing that from when you said, "At this point, I'm just tired of dealing with it" and asked that it be deleted. I apologize for misreading that. Regardless, even if you do intend to add history, I see no reason to keep this race out of the DPLs as it is otherwise finished, is it not? :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2018 (MDT)
No worries. The "Tired of dealing with it" bit was more in reference to ConcealedLight's persistence in getting his way and having one of the racial abilities changed, which still hasn't ended.
Regardless, I do plan plan to add the history, I just honestly forget to. --Dark Dragon (talk)
  • persistence of 2 users, and a shared opinion by other users as well. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

Storm Powered Trait Discussion Continued[edit]

Apparently, this discussion is not over so let me make this a bit clearer. The ability that is fine as is. The changed version of the ability does not keep with the original spirit of the ability as originally posted. Your claims and consensus that changing the ability is conducive for better gameplay are not only false, but they have no basis to be founded on, as none of those who are part of the consensus have ever actually used this race in game and can therefore not accurately judge whether or not the ability will be a hindrance to gameplay. Additionally, the option to choose when to apply the ability is no different than choosing whether or not to use a smite, which also does not hinder gameplay. Unless there is substantial evidence presented in you defense, the ability will stay as it has originally been written. --Dark Dragon (talk)

I'll admit that I am torn here, because you're right that the new trait isn't objectively better. It's all preference. I, for one, prefer the new version because I wouldn't like rolling a d4 every time I attack. At that point, I'd prefer a static +1 to damage, but in 5e it'd be, what, an extra 1 point of lightning damage? So the DM has to check for resistances or whatever for that damage type, and all over a single point of it. But, that's just my opinion. Your group may well like the trait as you wrote it, and again it's a perfectly fine way to run a game!
The dilemma I'm faced with is that all sides being equal, one has to be picked. Do I pick the author or the majority? Unfortunately, I've long been a proponent of "collaboration" rather than supporting a singular author, so I'm siding with the majority more out of precedent than anything. Again, while I personally prefer the new version, I sympathize with your plight and would certainly side with you were there not a majority. But as-is, it's you and Zar vs BigShotFancyMan, CL and Mara. This is why I am backing the change to the new version. If you had more support for your version, I would certainly agree that it should be changed back :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2018 (MDT)
A few things:
  • 1) It's not on every attack. You have the option to not use it at all.
  • 2) If you're in an encounter, the DM would already have stats up, so it's not difficult to check Resistance or Immunity. Additionally, they'd only ne
  • 3) I don't have a problem with collaboration. But I do have a problem with joining the majority just for the sake joining majority. Mind you, I have nothing against you personally, but more support does not mean its right. One should take both side at their own merit, not just go with whoever has the most votes. To each his own, though.
  • 4) I have provided ample support. Zar has provided a damage statistic and not only have I played the race myself, I have had others play it and I have asked/invited those in opposition to play it and provide their thoughts afterwords. There has been no evidence in support of the opposition that I haven't already addressed and/or countered with evidence of my own, but the majority of the responses I get "There's nothing wrong with it, but we like our version better". That's not good support or good community, and I'm not sure what more I need to provide to show my case.
  • 5) Why on god's green earth has someone in the opposition not made a variant race? That's one of options available and it certainly would've stopped this way sooner. I won't be making a variant because as has be stated, there is nothing wrong with my version. But, should that be within someone else's prerogative, by all means, do it.
--Dark Dragon (talk)
Kudos! You maintain an attitude that ignores collaboration. It isn't majority for the sake of majority. It is a majority than day in and day out edits homebrew and has read and watched hours of content pertaining to design, philosophy, and intent. It isn't simply more votes, otherwise I'd be fighting THAT as I have in the past when someone is bullied into a personal bias towards something. Your version simply goes against what people have a fairly good idea about. I have given my reasons why, and it isn't "I like our version better." It is not good support of a community to allow content that isn't in line with the webpage's goal. I won't give a participation trophy because a page was created. It should be held up to the ideas of core rules. If people want to play their version at their table go ahead, it is encouraged. but things are designed for a base style of play. Lead Rules Designer Jeremy Crawford just spoke on this ~2 months ago on his Twitter feed. Creating a variant race to allow a....flawed? trait just seems a waste of any peoples' time. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2018 (MDT)
With all due respect, Lead Rules Designer Jeremy Crawford is not the judge, jury and executioner of D&D 5e homebrew. He's welcome to create his own "official" homebrew for WotC that fits his design vision, but he's not allowed to tell our users what they can or cannot do with the system. If you want to follow his design principles, that's great! But DD has an otherwise uncontroversial race that he says has been playtested and his 5e group likes. This should not be disregarded because one guy — no matter who he is — made a post on Twitter. I am tempted to side with DD on this matter because we're always encouraging playtesting, and here is a user who says he playtested it and we're saying that accounts for nothing in his favor. Sadly, I know that doing so would get me in an edit war with you and CL, so I will leave the race as is and resign to stating my case.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2018 (MDT)
I think you misunderstand. The idea is when you start developing new stuff, it needs to be compatible with 5e. If you want to play homebrew rules at your table then great. It is the same idea as wiki's mission statement and that is to create material for all tables. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2018 (MDT)
DD's trait was compatible with 5e. It might not fit your idea what 5e racial traits should do, but it was compatible. You could place it in any BTB 5e game without adaptation of any mechanics.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

The way I see things, the extra d4 version of this trait should be the one written on the page. Consensus decided on the per-short-rest version, but the fact that DD has playtested the trait and judged it to be at a reasonable power level based on that playtest data means that I personally feel comfortable about ignoring consensus in this case. If the per short rest version of the trait had also been playtested, I'd then say that consensus should be adhered to, but at present, it hasn't.

If anything, I feel like the d4 version of the trait might be too weak at higher levels. Maybe give some thought to letting it scale with level, in line with most other cantrips? — NPC Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 16:09, 18 October 2018 (MDT)

Wait, so is consensus being ignored or not? I ask because the ability was still changed from 1d4 version, even though I put a note requesting that it not changed until a final decision had been reached. I'm just slightly confused. --Dark Dragon (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2018 (MDT)
It looks fine to me. Geodude put it back to 1d4 and BSFM added a design disclaimer, which was a really good idea and I'm disappointed I didn't think of it XD --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2018 (MDT)
Ah nevermind. My page just hadn't updated yet. --Dark Dragon (talk)
Actually, I think I might have a solution that will satisfy everyone. The ability will stay as is, but with the addition of it can only be used a number of times equal to the character's Cha mod? THrow in a recharge per short/long rest and bump up the damage to 2d4 around 10th level, and it should cover everyone's concerns, objections, and keep with the spirit of the original ability. Additionally, this way it shouldn't need the disclaimer. --Dark Dragon (talk)
I can settle for this. I still think DD is appropriate based on precedent, but a large part of my concern is addressed. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2018 (MDT)
I'd even be fine with it increased to d6 if it's limited like that, but that's just me :) I think the disclaimer should be added back if anyone objects to it being removed, but otherwise I have no problem with it being removed.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2018 (MDT)
For the record, {{Design Disclaimer}} isn't a bad thing. It notes a deviation from standard 1st party practice. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2018 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system ref. documents


admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors