V.A.L.U.E. Season 4 - PREPLANNING

General/Looking For Group
,
77
  • Shillelagh: agree. The one alternative you did not mention is to always cast it at any time, with the effect of it being active when combat starts, but the DM and maybe other players being annoyed. Maybe this is somthing more for a list of “suggested rulings” rather than a fixed houserule?
  • Conjure Minor Elementals yes, that spell’s scaling is too much. However, reducing it to +1d8 for every two levels might make it too weak compared to Spirit Shroud (a 3rd level spell, generally favorable damage types, blocks healing) or Shadow Blade (a 2nd level spell, conjures a light weapon that deals psychic damage). So maybe 1d8 per level instead? Or starting at 2d6 and then adding a d6 per level?
  • Hallow I agree, not much I can add.

One thing I would like to add:

  • Emanations. As of now they are probably the most broken thing in the new rules. Two scenarios are particulary noteworthy: First, using held actions and mounts and getting carried by other characters on their turns to deal damage over and over again, as the new rules cause the Emanation to apply a damage tick whenever it enters another creature’s space, limited to once per turn. And second, a high-mobility character like a druid wildshaped into an owl can just fly around a dungeon and apply Emanation damage to all creatures in their flight path without them being able to fight back.
    We could say Emanations deal damage only once per round, but that 1) does not solve the second issue, and 2) removes any tactical play/team combos to “double dip” the damage. I think I’d prefer simply using the 2014 rules instead, at least until WoTC erratas Emanations in some way. That removes both exploits, while still allowing teamwork to achieve “double-dips”, such as by pushing or grappling and carrying an enemy into the area.

Maybe we should have regular DMs run some 2024 rules games before we start the new season, to test them out and work out what really proves to be problematic in practice?

1 Like
78

@Istariel @Arthilas thanks :+1:

just to keep in mind:
(imo) for VALUE, I would argue to keep it simple, since I think a TL;DR Homebrew-list not gonna help anyone

(e.g. just to ban stuff is easier, than to re-write individual spells)

79

Agree as said for Shillelagh, more of a personal wish for which I’m lacking a 9th level spell slot :smile:

For CME and Hallow a ban could be considered for sure :+1:

Optionally only allow spells with a casting time of an action for new divine intervention. Of course as an avid cleric enjoyer, I would stauntly oppose this change :heart:

80

(they designed the Divine Intervention cleric feature, with the idea that one would us it for raise dead)

for Homegames I would phrase it like this:

  • The Cleric feature ‘Divine Intervention’ cannot be used for spells that take longer than 1 Hr. to cast.

for V.A.L.U.E. it would be prolly easier to put hallow on a ban list

1 Like
81

I would be against a ban of CME though, as it is an increidbly thematic spell for many gish buillds. All it needs is a reduction of its damage scaling.

While I agree we should keep things simple, we should not ban things if we can make easy adjustments to keep them around.

Banning Hallow would be easier and less problematic than Conjure Minor Elementals, because Hallow is extremely niche and likely would see no use outside of the Divine Intervention interaction - thus banning it would not hurt.
CME on the other hand is a spell that, even with nerfed damage, will be very useful and popular for gish builds as it allows them to deal “their” element as damage with their weapon attacks - something that previously only was possible for cold-themed gishes with Spirit Shroud. Therefore banning it would be a poor choice - it would have a big impact on character builds and heavily restrict gish builds theme-wise. .

82

I just read this post and did not follow the whole discussion, but I want to point out the following:

If a character can be created at the levels 1,5,11,17 (which I wholeheartedly support) and downleveling is allowed (which is also good in and of itself) a character of any level 1-17 can be created.

Is that a bug or is it a feature?

Proposed fix: Do not allow downleveling to a lower tier

And on the topic of downleveling - would you need to give back magic items?

1 Like
83

To add to that, since it happened this friday - it was basically the textbook case for downleveling to a lower tier:

I joined @frogemiah’s T2 table, which was the second session of a multi-session adventure/campaign (I was not able to attend the first session). As they recapped the first session and frogemiah told me about the setting and lore, I recognized the game this was inspired from as one of my favourite JRPGs. I had a VALUE character who was heavily inspired by one of the characters from the very same game and had a strong connection to the main deity/church of that game - which also played an important role in the campaign. That character would have been a perfect fit, only issue was that she was T3 already (level 16; she originally started out in T1).
Therefore I approached the DM, told her about that and asked if I could level that character down to T2 for this game - which she happily allowed. I set her back down to level 10 and removed any items except for the three she already had back then when she was T2 (two of which were DM rewards).

We had an amazing session; and when the campaign continues, I will most likely continue playing that character in T2.

I also had some T2 characters ready to go, but none of them would have been even remotely close to how well that T3 character fit into the game.

Considering all that, I would be strongly against banning downleveling. It of course should not occur regularly, but in certain situations it is good to have the option.

I don’t think that is too much of an issue, assuming we only allow downleveling with a good reason.

You are limited both by rarity and number of items (although I am in favor of increasing the numeric limits for the new season) and if you go down a tier you of course have to adhere to that tier’s limit. Therefore, as I said, when I downleveled from T3 to T2, I reduced the amount of equipped magic items to 3 (the current T2 limit) and did not use any very rare item.

1 Like
84

Technically downleveling is in a “gray zone” as it is not allowed per se but, not explicitly forbidden.

Personally, I don’t like it and I didn’t even think of your example. It allows people to jump around levels and leveling itself is of no consequence anymore.

Saying we allow downleveling within good reason is no reason at all, because for anything a “good” reason can be found and at what point is a good reason simply a convenient reason.

Proposed Fixes:

  • Long: Downleveling takes downtime days and you lose all magic items from the higher tier. You cannot simply revert back to your original level, you have to level up again. In my opinion this makes sense from a mechanical and storytelling standpoint.

  • Short: Ban downleveling alltogether. Stay true to the path your character takes. If you really want to play at a lower tier create the character anew.

I guess some people won’t like it but it is a complicated topic.

4 Likes
85

@Nepu downlevelling was never allowed by RAW
but since it was never explicitly forbidden, some DMs allowed it

I personally never allowed it on the VALUE tables when I was DM-ing

2 Likes
86

btw. for me this feels like

“it was never exp. forbidden to add extra features to my Elf” :person_shrugging:

I also think that storywise to level down makes no sense - unless you play a campaign with ‘downleveling’ as a story-focus:

e.g. you are all super heroes, who got cursed by the endboss … and now have to remember your abilities while re-starting at level 1

87

btw. because the table where I played discussed it for a couple of seconds^^

(I think someone else brought it up before … can’t remember who)

:point_right: suggest that should be a Tier 0 (levels 1-2) with Tier 1 (levels 3-4)

2 Likes
88

Of course downleveling during a campaign does not make sense storywise, as you said. But downleveling in a case like the one I described to join a specific VALUE campaign with a specific character makes sense.

VALUE sessions are open, and have no connecting story - so it isn’t that big of an issue story-wise if a character gets downleveled between sessions. Of course if a player prefers to not do it to keep their character’s personal story conssitent, that’s fine.

That I disagree with, I don’t think you can compare downleveling to this. Adding extra features would result in an illegal (as by 5e rules) character; and it would be cheating if done without consent.
Downleveling a character (and adhering to the limits of the new, lower tier) results in a legal character of a lower level. Downleveling (correctly) without consent would be bad behaviour, bot not cheating.

1 Like
89

@Arthilas you simply could have created a new level 5 character with the theme of the JRPG

no need to use a high level character with tons of magic items and gold

for your specific example: that new character would also have fit the level range of your group better … just saying

@Arthilas That I disagree with, I don’t think you can compare downleveling to this.

I wrote, that this is how it feels to me. By downleveling you do something that was not exp. forbidden, just because it was not exp. forbidden. :person_shrugging:

90

Gold is an irrelevant currency in the current value system. Except for resurrecting (and scribing spells as a wizard) I’ve never used significant amounts of gold (yes i know there’s also plate armor)

3 Likes
91

Even worse, it is not even useful for resurrection outside of Revivify diamonds (which are easily affordable in T2), because with our current pricings, resurrection is straight up unaffordable in cases Reviviy does not work and True Resurrection is required (i.e. disintegration).

Even my richest characters who have been in multiple T3 and T4 sessions, have never been close to the required 50k gold - and in T4, PCs themselves typically have access to Wish, True Resurrection or Divine Intervention to resurrect a disintegrated party member.

I actually stopped tracking gold exactly for some of my higher tier characters, especially when they don’t have spells with expensive consumed components, because it matters so little for them - they already have everything gold can buy for them…

1 Like
92

if you read Nepo’s post, you see that technically, the rule to create level 1, 5, 11, or 17 characters make no sense if downleveling would be allowed

why need to spend DM-rewards to level up a character, if I can play any character at any level I want? :person_shrugging:

aside that it makes 0 sense from a character growth point of view

93

As far as I’m aware, there is no correct downleveling as there are no rules in any published book that permit it.

We play D&D 5.0 with alterations as listed in the VALUE rules. There are established, written rules as to when you may level, and the process in which to do so. As far as I’m aware, there are no established, written rules in any published book for downleveling. I could be wrong; please feel free to direct me to the appropriate book & page.

For the most part, D&D is a set of rules of what you are allowed to do. Your character class tells you what actions you can take, it’s not a list of things you can’t do. Otherwise, I can say “I crush the enemy with my mind… the book doesn’t say I can’t, so therefore I can!”. Yeah… that wouldn’t work so well :slight_smile: That’s usually how most games work I believe, please feel free to think of the board games you know. I understand that some may feel that downleveling is different than empowering a character, but there is no written difference for intent in performing unauthorized actions, and as of now, we go specifically by published books and VALUE rules as written because it’s easier for DMs to have a common ground.

To my knowledge, there are no written rules permitting downleveling. As normal, DMs can house-rule anything for their table, so of course a DM could house-rule a down-level at their table… but since it’s not a written rule, that would be a house-ruling valid only at their table. Outside of an official written mechanic or a DM’s ruling, I am not aware of any other D&D 5.0-approved methods of altering a character.

Thus, for myself and the way that I view the matter, I believe that doing something that alters a character, is not in any written rule, and does not have a DM’s approval as a house ruling, would constitute cheating, not bad behavior. (Edit: please note that’s just how I feel. I’m not an authority here in VALUE or anywhere in life, just expressing my thoughts)

However, if anyone wants to change that and add such rules into the VALUE rules, that’s a completely separate issue. I’m only addressing things as they stand now.

2 Likes
94

This seems to be a contentious topic - which I did not expect tbh.

My 2 cents after reading some of the replies: I am with @BufoBufo and @Darthbinks on this one.

Downleveling solves the same problem that creating characters at the appropriate tier does (being able to play at any table at any tier) - only it creates way more problems doing so

I will be using @Arthilas reply as a baseline to my answer as why I think downleveling is not a good idea and should not be allowed as a rule every DM has to adhere to (if a DM wants to do it, they should be allowed, but not obliged to)

Story-Based Reasons: That’s the only positive I could think of - a character might know some NPC or other PC from the past, even though they technically cannot play anymore. This could easily be solved by a multiversal counterpart / long lost brother / other-arbitrary-reason-we-find-or-dont-find-I-dont-care that has those connections. It is easily possible for the DM and other players to assume that they worked with the technically new guy, we play pretend after all. The internal consistency of the character to be down-leveled is already broken through the downleveling, so a little metagaming would be not out of line.

Downleveling without good reason is just DM fiat, I think they should be able to allow it, but not be obliged to it. “No” should be the norm.

Magic Items is the biggest problem for me: If you make downleveling a rule DMs must adhere to, you need to know which magic item has which rarity. @Arthilas downleveled in good faith and did not use any higher tier items. If somebody does not do that (which is why we have rules), every DM needs to check which items are allowed to be used - a tremendous new workload, that is absolutely not necessary.

The only upside to downleveling, that cannot be more elegantly replicated via a new character at the appropriate tier is that you definitely lose a lot of power - but everybody already agreed that that is not the issue.

TLDR: Cut downleveling from the rules

It creates a bug with the create-a-new-character-for-a-tier and needs a lot of additional rules (which items are allowed, how far do you need to downlevel, which character options were not available at lower levels - but are now (e.g. warlock invocations) that you need to give back, etc) and more workload for the DMs than just creating a new character (that has the RP ties that the old character had, if needed)

Thoughts?

1 Like
95

I know it’s not the current discussion, just wanted to say that I really like this idea because there is a huge jump between 1-2 and 3+, though I think it only makes sense if with that new tier, you could create new characters at level 3 too like at all other tier separations

2 Likes
96

well downlevel was never in the rules to begin with,
but it might be nec. to expl. state that downleveling is not an option

btw. an alternative would be to kick “Tiers” altogether, since with downleveling anyone can play at any level they want anyway :person_shrugging:
… aside from making the DM-reward to level-up a character obsolete
(I am not a fan of this alternative :point_up: btw. - I just wanted to bring it up)

:point_right: we will prolly gonna vote on it