Trickery Domain: As bad as it seems?

[Trustypeaches]

You're a cleric. You will never have good damage. You get the same (meager) damage bonus at range with a light crossbow as you would in melee anyway.

A cleric who pumps Str or Dex to boost his damage is an idiot. You pump Dex to 14 for AC 19 (17 when wielding a crossbow), or you pump Str to 15 for AC 20, but doing both is crazy. And arguably the Dex route is better anyway due to saves/initiative/skills. There are certainly people who prefer Dex over Str.

If you actually read my post you'd see I'm not saying that clerics have worthwhile melee or that they should pump STR / DEX to improve their melee.

I'm simply pointing out that Trickery is the ONLY domain that gets Divine Strike (a weapon feature) but doesn't get either Heavy Armor Proficiency or Martial Weapons to reduce the MADness. So improving its AC and improving it's weapon damage are different stats, so it takes them even more investment to be as "passable" in melee as the other cleric domains. Now I agree, most clerics, especially Trickery, should just dump melee entirely, however what's especially odd is that on top of divine strike one of the main benefits of Invoke Duplicity is providing advantage to the cleric's attack rolls in melee range, which would ONLY apply to Inflict Wounds and melee attacks (assuming no multiclassing). So despite being markedly less well equipped for melee compared to every other Divine Strike domain, they have more features that reward melee than every other Divine Strike Domain short of War.

At the end of the day it's not terrible but it's just really really weird. It's a very odd inconsistency with the design of every other domain.

[Deathtongue]

Look, I never said that Polymorph wasn't versatile. It saves the domain from mediocrity. What I'm saying is that the spell doesn't appreciably enable the classic trickster archetype any more than most any other non-damaging spell.

Polymorph an ally into a tiny mouse to sneak them into a secure facility.

Or use the reduce spell. Or stick them in a bag of holding. Or use Pass Without Trace. Or a teleportation spell.

Or turn a enemy with information into a mouse and cage him so you can sneak him out of a secure facility.

Second verse, same as the first.

Approach a disgruntled, goblin slave in the orc encampment and tell him you can grant him amazing power to finally show up all the orcs, before polymorphing into a T-rex (from a safe distance) so he can serve as a distraction for your party as they sneak out.

Huh? You can't polymorph a typical orc slave into a T-Rex, unless we're talking about CR 14 orcs with CR 9 slaves.

Or hell, just turn people who displease you into animals for sh*ts and giggles.

That's not being a trickster. That's just slapstick.

[Son of A Lich!]

Okay, so when I think of "trickery" clerics, I expect Social grace (Hard to trick people if they already don't like you), a way to bend or outright break the rules in unusual niche ways, a degree of 'Luck', and abilities that require lateral thinking.

I think the best example of a character I would expect to be an excellent Trickery Cleric would be Indiana Jones. Sure, he doesn't always have a plan, but when he gets into the thick of a bad situation the thing that his opponents have to remember is that They Only THINK they have a Plan.

Trickery domain doesn't accomplish this at all.

I'm actually a little confused as to how they came up with this domain in the first place. The spells don't really work for the intended goal and actually make multiclassing into Rogue Redundant and Necessary simultaneously. Pass without a trace is great for getting the party in a place quietly. You still don't have anyway of dealing with things like Traps and guard dogs, because you don't have the follow up abilities natively within the package.

Of course, you could always just use these abilities ON the Rogue... But a Rogue that doesn't have this on lock is already suffering because they can't do what their class is meant to do well.



I love Critical Role, and I'm surprised that no one has brought up Jester in the discussion already. Jester is a Trickery Cleric, and a valued member of the team. I think that her player, Laura Bailey, should have rolled a Bard instead. Laura makes Jester work, and I'm not saying that the class is unplayable, but Nott out does Jester in trickery and that is a pity. There was a raid on the Platinum Dragon Temple, but lets keep in mind that took a LOT of DM buy in.

Had Jester been a Bard, she would have a great deal of Charisma to work with for her social situations. She would still have disguise self and the excellent suite of native Bard Buffs and Debuffs. She would still have had some healing (Laura states often that she never wanted to be the healer), and She would have Invisibility! And Hideous Laughter! And Vicious Mockery! and so many other effects that would really work well with Jester's intended play style.

I don't know, the Trickery Domain is a mess. It definitely needs some polish and maybe some homebrew. I think the Benign Transposition spell from 3e could have been a great tool in place of Blessing of the Trickster. I don't hate Invoke Duplicity, but it needs the most clarification of the whole domain. It really shouldn't be competing with Spiritual Weapon, because it lost that fight hard. I don't see Tricksters as being blasters, and the duplicate doesn't really add to that aside from new angles. Some out of combat utility, no doubt, but... I don't know, it's still lacking.

My overall score is that Bards, Rogues and Warlocks all do trickster's better - and Clerics should have new abilities that require lateral thinking to utilize.

2/10

[Galactkaktus]

If you actually read my post you'd see I'm not saying that clerics have worthwhile melee or that they should pump STR / DEX to improve their melee.

I'm simply pointing out that Trickery is the ONLY domain that gets Divine Strike (a weapon feature) but doesn't get either Heavy Armor Proficiency or Martial Weapons to reduce the MADness. It's a very odd inconsistency with the design of every other domain.

It's especially odd since one of the benefits of Invoke Duplicity is providing advantage to the cleric's attack rolls in melee range, which would ONLY apply to Inflict Wounds and melee attacks (assuming no multiclassing), as well as canceling out the disadvantage on Light Crossbow / Guiding Bolt.

At the end of the day it's not terrible but it's just really really weird.

What is wrong with daggers? Or shortsword for elves?

[Skylivedk]

Nope, except in your perception.

And most guides and a lot of players.

In a party where people play as a team, the monk or rogue who is sneaking can, for an hour, act as a superb scout and prevent the party from being surprised. (And as above, reduce the chance that Mr Paladin clanks away the attempt at surprise ...)

It's ok... A very limited ability though and utterly outshone by Pass without Trace. I'd increase it to include Slight of Hands and Deception as well. Maybe even scale the number of targets with cantrip scaling.

Advantage when casting Inflict Wounds is very handy. 4d6 damage does not suck.

Excuse me? 4d6 does suck for a spell slot (14 average) - it's the damage of guiding bolt. I guess you mean 3d10 though (16,5) which still sucks (less than a GWM hit). In a few cases, it might be worth it.

As a rule of thumb, I cringe when I see the player in my group use either. That's a perfectly good bless, shield of faith, sanctuary or healing word he's tossing it the window for damage that could have been done without using a long rest resource

[QUOTE=KorvinStarmast;23515534]
Too many ways to count. [/QUOTE
It's invis... They could have made it pr WIS modifier and it would have broken nothing at all.

Yeah. Psychic damage would have been so much better.

Agreed.

[MaxWilson]

If you actually read my post you'd see I'm not saying that clerics have worthwhile melee or that they should pump STR / DEX to improve their melee.

Read it, responded to it, don't want to repeat myself.

I'm simply pointing out that Trickery is the ONLY domain that gets Divine Strike (a weapon feature) but doesn't get either Heavy Armor Proficiency or Martial Weapons to reduce the MADness. So improving its AC and improving it's weapon damage are different stats, so it takes them even more investment to be as "passable" in melee as the other cleric domains.

Responded to this already.

Now I agree, most clerics, especially Trickery, should just dump melee entirely, however what's especially odd is that on top of divine strike one of the main benefits of Invoke Duplicity is providing advantage to the cleric's attack rolls in melee range, which would ONLY apply to Inflict Wounds and melee attacks (assuming no multiclassing).

You're a cleric. You have crummy damage. If you're going to use a Channel Divinity and your concentration to gain advantage, don't waste that advantage on melee weapon attacks. Use it for Contagion + Spiritual Weapon, or at least for Inflict Wounds + Spiritual Weapon.

This is true even if you do for some reason have martial weapon proficiency. A rapier with an extra +d8 damage is still unimpressive.

==================================

To what end? Now that you have your rival / angry mob leader / skeptical noble / gullible customer / greedy bandit polymorphed, now what?

This is exactly the question I keep asking about Knowledge domain, and all I get in response is crickets. "Now what?"

Here's one answer for Trickery cleric or Enchanter: now you take the frog that used to be the skeptical noble, you put him in a jar full of moldy cheese, and you parade him around in front of the town for a bit before chucking him in a pig trough and teleport away while he's dodging the pigs until one of them bites him hard enough to turn back into a noble.

Then you take off your Disguise Self spell and laugh yourself silly about the skeptical noble who now has a grudge against Merlin the King's Friend instead of you.

Is it a great, tricky plot? No, it's pretty dumb and simplistic. But it's better than anything I've heard for Knowledge domain so far.

5E isn't a good game for tricks. It's too oriented around the premise that the right solution is any problem is to reduce the problem to 0 HP. (Witness the complaint above about Tricksters not getting martial weapons proficiency and heavy armor.)

[Citan]

Well, the point was you're mischaracterizing me, and continue to do so.
Considering you've no experience demonstrable and no evidence, I'm going to tread on your non argument.
*ahem*
Bards are better at this because they get more skills and expertise and illusions and enchantments.
Knowledge Clerics are better at this because they can gain a wider variety of skills.
Wizards are better at this because they get illusions and enchantments.
Sorcerers are better at this because they get illusions and enchantments.
Druids are better at this, they get polymorph and can turn into animals all of the time. They lack illusions but so does cleric.

Crazy I know. Basically any class would qualitatively do better than this archetype.

I've been knowledge of the game rules and experience with the domain and comparable options. I am the one in position who has provided evidence, anecdotal and theoretical to the weaknesses of this domain. I am the one who is capable of making these statements in this relationship.

Okay, gonna break this down for you because it whooshed you so bad and I think you need to understand it for your own benefit for future arguments.

You said I was the only exception in the allegedly unanimous opinion that "Trickster Clerics are good."
I pointed out that I was not because there are other people who clearly think otherwise in this thread.
Your statement was empirically wrong and not a good way to start an argument, which is all I was saying.

Well, no.
You've been acting like the opinion that "Trickery is a bad archetype" is established by facts and so widely shared it could be made universal statement, which is wrong on both accounts. Otherwise this thread would have died first page after the 5th or 6th chained "yes you're right".

Second, Knowledge Cleric is *NOT* better. Just because you can have proficiency in some extra skills does not mean you're directly better. If one wants to really play a trickster, it means he must be able to deceive someone. What skills are *really* useful for that? Deception, Sleight of Hand, Persuasion, Stealth?
That makes 4 skills. You can get two from background, one to three depending on race. It fits if you really want to make it yout daily bread and butter.

Third, we don't care that Bard is better at deception, or Druid better at polymorphing, than Trickery Cleric. It's as stupid an argument as anyone could get. It's like saying "Druid is better than Ranger at Conjuring Animals" or "Evoker is better than Light Cleric at blasting". Yeah, duh. Of course they are. It's in their design.
Because if you want to make stupid comparisons, it can go both ways: no Druid can revive people, Wizards can not even heal them. But hey, look, Light Cleric has Fireball and Wall of Fire, so we really need to compare both! Logical conclusion: "wow, Wizard suck so much at healing". Gg Sherlock.

The important thing is not that an hypothetic class would be better at doing some job than you, it's that *you* can do it in *your* party *right now*. And that's exactly what (most) Domains do: bringing you tools that are outside the usual comfort zone of a Cleric.
Otherwise, you would necessarily have to say that Arcane Trickster suck because it gets so few spells compared to a Wizard. That a Ranger or a Shadow Monk suck even harder because they get so few compared to a Druid. See the logical void here?

When you decide to play a Trickster Cleric, the important word is not Trickster, it's Cleric. It means you want to play a Cleric which has some duplicity/illusion related features. If you didn't want to play a Cleric, then don't pick it.
There is no "Trickster" class because, as is clear from the thread, different people put different meanings on it. So best way is to build it from scratch as multiclassing (Bard/Rogue probably, although Illusionist Wizard and Subtle Sorcerer are a thing) or homebrew.

By the way, I gave my arguments above in thread, at least things that could add a bit to everything else others said. You would have noticed it if you had bothered actually coming in with an open mind instead of starting with a definitively closed "it has been established as bad".
And I never said you were the only one either having a bad opinion of Tricksters. Just that you were not representative of any kind of unanimity. As the very lively existence of the thread proves much better than any words I could say.

To take your own words...
"Your statement was empirically wrong and not a good way to start an argument, which is all I was saying."

Anyways I don't have anything else constructive to bring so I'll let you all continue. ;)

5E isn't a good game for tricks. It's too oriented around the premise that the right solution is any problem is to reduce the problem to 0 HP. (Witness the complaint above about Tricksters not getting martial weapons proficiency and heavy armor.)

Is it from the game, or from the players? ;)
I'd say both.
Because I made several one-shots when not one drop of blood was dropped and the players enjoyed it much. :) And although there are certainly game systems better suited to focus on infiltration/thievery/social manipulation, it works in 5e.

[Skylivedk]

I feel like you have a narrow view of "trickery".

Turning creatures into animals in itself is one of the most classical forms of trickery employed by gods across multiple mythologies, both to humiliate their foes or empower their allies. That you can't imagine the kinds of shenanigans one could get up to with this demonstrates a dreadful lack of imagination.

The main feature of spellcasting classes is their spells and i think that trickery domain has the best domain spells in the phb. So i really can't agree that they are bad i think it's the best domain in the phb.

I think the spell list in general and polymorph specifically have been established to be good by both supporters and detractors of the archetype.

It's most of the other features that seem very meh.

As to the liveliness of the thread being an argument in itself for the strength of the archetype: I wouldn't count on that. Some posters defend the balance in 5e almost no matter the argument presented.

I've seen GWF with only base damage being called viable. Savage Attacker and TWF as well. It's like we're not all playing the game where Mordenkainen's Sword is a 7th level spell and any change to the rules is heresy.

To OP:
Maybe test the following:
- blessing of the trickster can affect more skills
- minor illusion is given at level 1
- remove divine strike
- make the invis WIS mod based

Maybe even throw in one extra skill proficiency. I'd try the other parts first.

[Citan]

I think the spell list in general and polymorph specifically have been established to be good by both supporters and detractors of the archetype.

It's most of the other features that seem very meh.

As to the liveliness of the thread being an argument in itself for the strength of the archetype: I wouldn't count on that. Some posters defend the balance in 5e almost no matter the argument presented.

I've seen GWF with only base damage being called viable. Savage Attacker and TWF as well. It's like we're not all playing the game where Mordenkainen's Sword is a 7th level spell and any change to the rules is heresy.

To OP:
Maybe test the following:
- blessing of the trickster can affect more skills
- minor illusion is given at level 1
- remove divine strike
- make the invis WIS mod based

Maybe even throw in one extra skill proficiency. I'd try the other parts first.

This seems a solid package for homebrew (honestly even the extra skill proficiency is fine balance-wise imo).

[Snowbluff]

Second, Knowledge Cleric is *NOT* better.

Third, we don't care that Bard is better than Trickery Cleric.

Well, no.
You've been acting like the opinion that "Trickery is a bad archetype" is established by facts and widely shared, which is wrong on both accounts. Otherwise this thread would have died first page after the 5th or 6th "yes you're right".

Checks out.

Second, Knowledge Cleric is *NOT* better. Just because you can have proficiency in some extra skills does not mean you're directly better. If one wants to really play a trickster, it means he must be able to deceive someone. What skills are *really* useful for that? Deception, Sleight of Hand, Persuasion, Stealth?
That makes 4 skills. You can get two from background, one to three depending on race. It fits.

The problem is that to get these skills usually means giving up another skill you might want. Knowledge clerics get 2 more skills. So if you wanted to have like Nature or Arcana or History, you're going to be short skills unless you're a knowledge cleric.

So for more trickery, more skills is better because it reduces the relative cost of getting these skills.
So Knowledge Cleric is good.
These same applies to a certain extend to Arcane Cleric, who can pick up a few token illusions.

Third, we don't care that Bard is better than Trickery Cleric. It's as stupid an argument as anyone could get. It's like saying "Druid is better than Ranger at Conjuring Animals" or "Evoker is better than Light Cleric at blasting". Yeah, duh. Of course they are. It's in their design.
The important thing is not that an hypothetic class would be better at doing your job than you, it's that *you* can do it in *your* party *right now*.

We have to rate it based on something. It didn't provide anything against the other clerics past a few minute and asynergistic features. Since I don't think it's any better at what it's intended to do over other clerics, I'm rating it relative to other casters.
[quote]
By the way, I gave my arguments above in thread, at least things that could add a bit to everything else others said. You would have noticed it if you had bothered actually coming in with an open mind instead of starting with a definitively closed "it has been established as bad".
And I never said you were the only one either having a bad opinion of Tricksters. Just that you were not representative of any kind of unanimity. As the very lively existence of the thread proves much better than any words I could say.

To take your own words...
"Your statement was empirically wrong and not a good way to start an argument, which is all I was saying."

Well, no.
You've been acting like the opinion that "Trickery is a bad archetype" is established by facts and widely shared, which is wrong on both accounts. Otherwise this thread would have died first page after the 5th or 6th "yes you're right".

I haven't made any empirical statements above. It's all obviously someone's opinion, so who gives a **** that it is an opinion. The other poster actually said "no one but you thinks this way," which was contrary to factual evidence.

Anyways I don't have anything else constructive to bring so I'll let you all continue. ;)

Yeah, much better. +1

[Trustypeaches]

Read it, responded to it, don't want to repeat myself.

You're a cleric. You have crummy damage. If you're going to use a Channel Divinity and your concentration to gain advantage, don't waste that advantage on melee weapon attacks. Use it for Contagion + Spiritual Weapon, or at least for Inflict Wounds + Spiritual Weapon.

This is true even if you do for some reason have martial weapon proficiency. A rapier with an extra +d8 damage is still unimpressive

I feel like you’re under the mistaken impression I think Cleric’s Melee damage matters. It doesn’t.

I’m just pointing out a weird inconsistency between Trickery and the other Domain’s with Divine Strike. That’s literally all I’m saying. It doesn’t make Trickery horribly worse, just weird and anomalous

As far as Spirituals Weapon goes, I checked and yeah it counts as the clerics attack so it’d get advantage. On the other hand, it requires the Cleric, the spiritual weapon, and the illusion all be within 5 feet of a target. Considering both your illusion and your spiritual weapon require your bonus action to move, this combo is really really easy to get out of, and really hard for the Cleric to set up again.

It could work in certain situations though

[Trustypeaches]

Just for fun, here's my idea for Trickery's Invoke Duplicity, or at least how I would write it.

Channel Divinity: Invoke Duplicity
Starting at 2nd level, as an action, you create a perfect illusion of yourself that lasts for 1 minute, or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). The illusion appears in an unoccupied space that you can see within 30 feet of you. As a free action, you can move the illusion up to your move speed to a space you can see, but it must remain within 60 feet of you.

For the duration, you can cast spells and speak as though you were in the illusion’s space, but you must use your own senses. Additionally, as an action, you may swap positions with your illusion if you can see it. This swap is done perfectly so it is impossible to tell that you have swapped places, and can be done before or after moving yourself or your illusion.

The illusion is utterly indistinguishable from you. Physical contact with the illusion reveals it to be false, but does not make it disappear, and does not make the one who made contact with it any better at discerning the illusion.

Removing the kinda unwieldy melee-range advantage just made sense to me, while allowing you to swap with your illusion for an action (or possibly action) really plays up the mind games angle of the skill, giving you a concrete way to continuously screw with your foes. This might be considered too strong compared to other channel divinities, but considering this takes your concentration I feel like it's fine.

Possibly instead of "swapping" you could use a bonus action to call the illusion back to you, so that when you move apart it's indeterminable which is the illusion again.

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

Blessing of the trickster is huge. Make the guy who thought heavy armor is cool not screw up your ambushes. Ambushing can heavily tip many very difficult encounters in your favor.

The spell list is superb. That alone makes trickery not suck.

People seem to play opening monster rooms too much...

[stoutstien]

Just for fun, here's my idea for Trickery's Invoke Duplicity, or at least how I would write it.
Allowing you to swap with your illusion for an action (or possibly action) really plays up the mind games angle of the skill, giving you a concrete way to continuously screw with your foes. This might be considered too strong compared to other channel divinities, but considering this takes your concentration I feel like it's fine. Possibly instead of "swapping" you could use a bonus action to call the illusion back to you, so that when you move apart it's indistinguishable which is the illusion again.

any reduction in action economy usage would help a lot. but the lack of guidelines still makes it hard to see use table to table.
do creatures waste Aoo on duplicates?

[Son of A Lich!]

Just for fun, here's my idea for Trickery's Invoke Duplicity, or at least how I would write it.
Allowing you to swap with your illusion for an action (or possibly action) really plays up the mind games angle of the skill, giving you a concrete way to continuously screw with your foes. This might be considered too strong compared to other channel divinities, but considering this takes your concentration I feel like it's fine. Possibly instead of "swapping" you could use a bonus action to call the illusion back to you, so that when you move apart it's indistinguishable which is the illusion again.

Range! add in something like: you need to stay within, let's say 60 ft of each other. Otherwise, this is basically a free Simulacrum but at level 2 that can't be killed.

(Never mind, I thought you skipped that, and skimmed past the time duration but you covered those as well. Well done!)

This seems like a pretty solid play. I would rather use this over the original's, but the rest of the original still needs a bit more work in many other areas.

At least Trickery would have a solid niche that other builds weren't able to do.

[Trustypeaches]

Range! add in something like: you need to stay within, let's say 60 ft of each other. Otherwise, this is basically a free Simulacrum but at level 2 that can't be killed.

(Never mind, I thought you skipped that, and skimmed past the time duration but you covered those as well. Well done!)

This seems like a pretty solid play. I would rather use this over the original's, but the rest of the original still needs a bit more work in many other areas.

At least Trickery would have a solid niche that other builds weren't able to do.

If I were to change anything else, I'd make the following changes.

Tricks of the Trade
When you choose this domain at 1st level, you gain the Minor Illusion cantrip if you don't already know it. You also gain proficiency in one of the following skills of your choice: Deception, Stealth, or Sleight of Hand.

Channel Divinity: Cloak of Shadows
Starting at 6th level, as an action, you become invisible until the end of your next turn. You become visible if you attack or cast a spell.

You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Wisdom modifier (a minimum of once). You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.

I don't see why they need to tie 6 seconds of invisibility to your Channel Divinities, it's not that potent an affect. And it pisses me off to no end that Arcana can get Minor Illusion but Trickery Domain doesn't.

[Son of A Lich!]

The spell list is superb. That alone makes trickery not suck.

People seem to play opening monster rooms too much...

On 3.5e Monks: Congratulations; your class abilities make you slightly less worse fighting unarmed then a fighter with literally any weapon. Flurry of Blows means you get to miss more times every round!

The spell list is asynergistic to just playing a class with the skills already built in. I'm 70% confident that every spell on the spell list is found on the Bard's spell list, and that begs the question of why aren't you playing bard.

This is why everyone wants illusions on the spell list. Illusions are versatile and you need versatility to fix problems.

[MaxWilson]

On 3.5e Monks: Congratulations; your class abilities make you slightly less worse fighting unarmed then a fighter with literally any weapon. Flurry of Blows means you get to miss more times every round!

The spell list is asynergistic to just playing a class with the skills already built in. I'm 70% confident that every spell on the spell list is found on the Bard's spell list, and that begs the question of why aren't you playing bard.

This is why everyone wants illusions on the spell list. Illusions are versatile and you need versatility to fix problems.

If you're saying that clerics are bad, I agree. Clerics are bad and need to die in a fire. A game without clerics or NPC purported gods is a better game on multiple levels. Robert E. Howard's stories didn't have any "gods." Neither did Tolkien's. Greek gods are entertaining, but only in stories where they are the protagonists. A D&D game about mortal agency in a world where Greek gods are active on the stage is a game where nothing you can do really matters compared to the whims of the gods (which is sort of the point from a mythic Greek standpoint but makes for a stupid game).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a game where clerics don't exist. Bards, wizards, warlocks, and druids more than suffice to fill all the necessary magical fantasy archetypes. Frankly even bards and warlocks are redundant.

Edit: blue text for hyperbole, because Poe's Law.

[Son of A Lich!]

If I were to change anything else, I'd make the following changes.



I don't see why they need to tie 6 seconds of invisibility to your Channel Divinities, it's not that potent an affect. And it pisses me off to no end that Arcana can get Minor Illusion but Trickery Domain doesn't.

I'd make the channel divinity swapping with an allied character's position.

Invisibility can have uses, but if you don't have sneak attack damage, it looses a lot of it's combat potential. Dictating the battlefield (Like, say, Swapping the Wizard with yourself, So you are in Melee with armor and a shield and the Wizard doesn't need to risk an AoO) is more helpful to everyone and can be used laterally in a number of ways (Like, if the Rogue is locked in prison, you could swap positions with him to use your lock pick and he is free to run away. Then you can use Invoke Duplicity out the window and swap with the dupe and dismiss the Duplicate).

That, plus skills, tools and a couple of illusions would be great. It sounds like it'd be a lot of fun.

[Galactkaktus]

There is nothing wrong with using cloak of shadow with spirit guardian if you want combat applicatins for it.

[R.Shackleford]

There's nothing wrong with Blessing of the Trickster on it's own (although I wish you had the choice of granting advantage on Stealth, Sleight of Hand, and Deception for more versatility).

The problem is that it's ALL Tricksters get at level 1, which is hilariously little compared to any other Domain.

I'm not 100% sure you'd get advantage on your spiritual weapon strikes, but even if you did, the fact they both require bonus actions to maneuver and use is limiting.

And the problem with concentration isn't that it's hard to maintain, it's that it competes with the cleric's best spells: spiritual guardians, bless, and the Trickster's Polymorph.

Blessing of the Trickster is super useful as it's at-will and doesn't eat up your channel divinity. Group stealth rolls just got better even if you aren't going to go full on trickster god.

You most definately do get advantage to attacks with spiritual weapon. It doesn't say weapon attacks, it doesn't say spell attacks, it says "attacks".

"Additionally, when both you and your illusion are within 5 feet of a creature that can see the illusion, you have advantage on attack rolls against that creature, given how distracting the illusion is to the target."

[Trustypeaches]

Blessing of the Trickster is super useful as it's at-will and doesn't eat up your channel divinity. Group stealth rolls just got better even if you aren't going to go full on trickster god.

Again, it's not bad. It's just not very much considering it's all Tricksters get at first level. I think the domain should've gotten a free cantrip (Minor illusion, maybe Mage Hand) or a proficiency in deception / stealth / sleight of hand placed on top of that to put it on level ground with the rest of the domains.

You most definately do get advantage to attacks with spiritual weapon. It doesn't say weapon attacks, it doesn't say spell attacks, it says "attacks".

"Additionally, when both you and your illusion are within 5 feet of a creature that can see the illusion, you have advantage on attack rolls against that creature, given how distracting the illusion is to the target."

Yeah I double checked. I was unsure because I didn't know if the Spiritual Weapon counted as it's own creature making it's own attacks or if it's attacks were the Cleric's

On the other hand, you would need the cleric, the cleric's illusion, and the spiritual weapon to all be within 5 feet of the target. And since both the illusion and the spiritual weapon require the use of a bonus action to move, it seems really awkward and unwieldy to reposition if your original target moves or if you need to change targets.

It seems like I could be situationally useful, though

[R.Shackleford]

Again, it's not bad. It's just not very much considering it's all Tricksters get at first level. I think the domain should've gotten a free cantrip (Minor illusion, maybe Mage Hand) or a proficiency in deception / stealth / sleight of hand placed on top of that to put it on level ground with the rest of the domains.


Yeah I double checked. I was unsure because I didn't know if the Spiritual Weapon counted as it's own creature making it's own attacks or if it's attacks were the Cleric's

On the other hand, you would need the cleric, the cleric's illusion, and the spiritual weapon to all be within 5 feet of the target. And since both the illusion and the spiritual weapon require the use of a bonus action to move, it seems really awkward and unwieldy to reposition if your original target moves or if you need to change targets.

It seems like I could be situationally useful, though

Enemies tend to come to the player, having the illusion next to you when a creature comes up to you means that you should be attacking it. Casting Spiritual Weapon as a bonus action and then performing a weapon attack is a good option.

Trickster is actually best on multiclassing tho.

[Deathtongue]

This is exactly the question I keep asking about Knowledge domain, and all I get in response is crickets. "Now what?"

Eh? What do you mean, now what?

Let's go back to your rival. Here's what you can do with RT/KotA: Seduce his lover. Outperform him at a social dance. Beat him at a flashy casino game James Bond-style. Or, hell, you have a Channel Divinity that doesn't have spell components. Aside from the many things you could do with Suggestion, you can read his surface thoughts. Do you know what kind of edge that gives you in social engineering? You could just straight up ask him his most embarrassing moment or if he had any embarrassing affairs or if he's planning on betraying the king.

Now extend that for the rest of the people in your list. Angry mob leader can be convinced (with a properly poached Intimidate or Persuasion) or 'convinced' with Thought of Ages to stand down. A skeptical noble can be blackmailed by stealing his secrets. A gullible customer can be convinced that you know something about jewelry/metalwork/price of tea in china with a skill you pulled out of your butt.

I am seriously baffled by how little you think of Read Thoughts and Knowledge of the Ages. In a typical dungeon crawl, sure, they're not really that big of a deal. But in a roleplay-heavy game that relies on you outmaneuvering your antagonists? I.e. the essence of the Trickster archetype? Both are solid gold if you put some thought into it.

[Zalabim]

I like playing tricksy casters. Trickery cleric is the absolute bottom rung of this. One of my first characters I played was a trickster cleric, and I know it's awful for what we think it's supposed to do.

Given it was one of your first characters, you probably suffered from not knowing what a trickery cleric is supposed to do. Some of that is on the class for not being as obvious as it could be in what it's supposed to do. I think you picked up on a lot of its cues though and just dismissed them or didn't follow through to their conclusion.

I'm not sure DIvine Strike is at all appropriate. I would think the cantrip bonus is better for someone hiding than a melee only attack.

You think someone that's hiding should csll divine fire from the heavens rather than make an attack that gets advantage from being hidden? That seems like a weird preference. Also, divine strike is not melee only.

My point is that to make the most out of Medium Armor you need 14 Dex. But you're stuck with simple weapons, the best of which are all strength. So you can't dump DEX or you suffer AC, and you can't dump strength or else you're stuck with a dagger and a light crossbow for offense, the latter of which costs you your shield and simply cancels out the advantage from Invoke Duplicity.

This means that if a Trickery wants good AC and good melee damage they want both DEX and STR, while Every other cleric domain with Divine Strike can dump one or the other and sacrifice neither AC nor melee damage output (for the most part). Trickery is the only exception. I wouldn't even bring it up if the domain had gotten Potent Spellcasting like every other Domain that has neither Heavy Armor or Martial Weapon proficiency (Grave, Light, Knowledge, Arcana).

It's not a huge deal, you aren't actually going to be using melee for your main damage output, but it's a really weird design choice and I don't understand the intent.

Divine strike is not melee only, and I think you do understand the design intent without realizing it. The intent is that the best weapons for trickery clerics are daggers and light crossbows.

I'm simply pointing out that Trickery is the ONLY domain that gets Divine Strike (a weapon feature) but doesn't get either Heavy Armor Proficiency or Martial Weapons to reduce the MADness. So improving its AC and improving it's weapon damage are different stats, so it takes them even more investment to be as "passable" in melee as the other cleric domains. Now I agree, most clerics, especially Trickery, should just dump melee entirely, however what's especially odd is that on top of divine strike one of the main benefits of Invoke Duplicity is providing advantage to the cleric's attack rolls in melee range, which would ONLY apply to Inflict Wounds and melee attacks (assuming no multiclassing). So despite being markedly less well equipped for melee compared to every other Divine Strike domain, they have more features that reward melee than every other Divine Strike Domain short of War.

At the end of the day it's not terrible but it's just really really weird. It's a very odd inconsistency with the design of every other domain.

Trickery clerics use Dexterity for both their AC and their weapon damage. There's no particular MAD going on. As I've said, none of their features require melee attacks. I think the intention for invoke duplicity is the first benefit it offers you, not the last. You can cast spells as if you were in its space, letting you use close range and melee spells (which the cleric list is fond of) without putting yourself in danger. Then if you do find yourself in the danger zone with it, or put yourself there, you get advantage on your attacks.

As to the liveliness of the thread being an argument in itself for the strength of the archetype: I wouldn't count on that. Some posters defend the balance in 5e almost no matter the argument presented.

I've seen GWF with only base damage being called viable. Savage Attacker and TWF as well. It's like we're not all playing the game where Mordenkainen's Sword is a 7th level spell and any change to the rules is heresy.

GWF is viable. Savage attacker is I guess something if you want to boost your average damage, have 20 in your primary attribute, and don't want to marry a specific weapon. TWF is viable for some, just not the ones you'd expect, Mordenkainen's Sword has no excuses, and there's a bit of a difference between viable and optimal that I think you'd have to neglect to complain about GWF, but the fighting style can certainly be both. It just depends on your goal. I guess some people will complain about the balance of some features even if they can be proven wrong.

[MaxWilson]

Eh? What do you mean, now what?

Let's go back to your rival. Here's what you can do with RT/KotA: Seduce his lover. Outperform him at a social dance. Beat him at a flashy casino game James Bond-style. Or, ----, you have a Channel Divinity that doesn't have spell components. Aside from the many things you could do with Suggestion, you can read his surface thoughts. Do you know what kind of edge that gives you in social engineering? You could just straight up ask him his most embarrassing moment or if he had any embarrassing affairs or if he's planning on betraying the king.

Now extend that for the rest of the people in your list. Angry mob leader can be convinced (with a properly poached Intimidate or Persuasion) or 'convinced' with Thought of Ages to stand down. A skeptical noble can be blackmailed by stealing his secrets. A gullible customer can be convinced that you know something about jewelry/metalwork/price of tea in china with a skill you pulled out of [nowhere].

I am seriously baffled by how little you think of Read Thoughts and Knowledge of the Ages. In a typical dungeon crawl, sure, they're not really that big of a deal. But in a roleplay-heavy game that relies on you outmaneuvering your antagonists? I.e. the essence of the Trickster archetype? Both are solid gold if you put some thought into it.

It's not that I think little of Read Thoughts per se: it's that I'm frustrated by the (up till now) total vacuum of answers about your expectations for "trickery" and why you expect to get out of Knowledge that justifies the opportunity cost (all the tricks that you can't pull because you're a cleric and not a wizard). It seems clear from the above that the "trickery" shtick, to you, is about looking cooler than your rival by outperforming him in social situations and occasionally indulging a bit of blackmail. I don't really get how that's trickery per se, but at least now I know why you think Knowledge is cool, because clearly it does that.

I also note that an Enchanter (or better yet, Sorc 3/Enchanter X or Sorc 3/Illusionist 6+) is clearly a far better blackmailer/mind reader-style trickster than a Knowledge cleric is. That's exactly what I predicted would be the case in post #93 and it's good to have that suspicion confirmed.

[stoutstien]

Doesn't matter if divine strike is ranged or not 1/2 the game is immune to poison. It was a bad move by the design team.

[Deathtongue]

I don't really get how that's trickery per se, but at least now I know why you think Knowledge is cool, because clearly it does that.

With all due respect: what the hell are you talking about? Getting the better of people through honeyed words, manipulation, social engineering, misdirection, and stealing secrets is literally the essence of the trickster archetype. If you looked at my long list of ways you can use the Knowledge domain to implement the Trickster Archetype in fundamental ways that the Trickery domain can't and are going 'well, I don't see a connection' -- I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to conclude that you just plain don't understand this basic literary device.

I also note that an Enchanter (or better yet, Sorc 3/Enchanter X or Sorc 3/Illusionist 6+) is clearly a far better blackmailer/mind reader-style trickster than a Knowledge cleric is. That's exactly what I predicted would be the case in post #93 and it's good to have that suspicion confirmed.

I'm not claiming that the Knowledge cleric is the best way to play a trickster. I think a Lore Bard or certain builds of Sorcerer is much better at it.

What I am claiming is that the Knowledge cleric is easily a better Trickster Archetype than the Trickery cleric, which is a pretty elementary failing of game design.

[MaxWilson]

With all due respect: what the ---- are you talking about? Getting the better of people through honeyed words, manipulation, social engineering, misdirection, and stealing secrets is literally the essence of the trickster archetype. If you looked at my long list of ways you can use the Knowledge domain to implement the Trickster Archetype in fundamental ways that the Trickery domain can't and are going 'well, I don't see a connection' -- I'm sorry, but I'm just going to have to conclude that you just plain don't understand this basic literary device.

I'm not claiming that the Knowledge cleric is the best way to play a trickster. I think a Lore Bard or certain builds of Sorcerer is much better at it.

What I am claiming is that the Knowledge cleric is easily a better Trickster Archetype than the Trickery cleric, which is a pretty elementary failing of game design.

What I am talking about is this:

Eh? What do you mean, now what?

Let's go back to your rival. Here's what you can do with RT/KotA: Seduce his lover. Outperform him at a social dance. Beat him at a flashy casino game James Bond-style. Or, ----, you have a Channel Divinity that doesn't have spell components. Aside from the many things you could do with Suggestion, you can read his surface thoughts. Do you know what kind of edge that gives you in social engineering? You could just straight up ask him his most embarrassing moment or if he had any embarrassing affairs or if he's planning on betraying the king.

Now extend that for the rest of the people in your list. Angry mob leader can be convinced (with a properly poached Intimidate or Persuasion) or 'convinced' with Thought of Ages to stand down. A skeptical noble can be blackmailed by stealing his secrets. A gullible customer can be convinced that you know something about jewelry/metalwork/price of tea in china with a skill you pulled out of [nowhere].

I am seriously baffled by how little you think of Read Thoughts and Knowledge of the Ages. In a typical dungeon crawl, sure, they're not really that big of a deal. But in a roleplay-heavy game that relies on you outmaneuvering your antagonists? I.e. the essence of the Trickster archetype? Both are solid gold if you put some thought into it.

It's not that I think little of Read Thoughts per se: it's that I'm frustrated by the (up till now) total vacuum of answers about your expectations for "trickery" and why you expect to get out of Knowledge that justifies the opportunity cost (all the tricks that you can't pull because you're a cleric and not a wizard). It seems clear from the above that the "trickery" shtick, to you, is about looking cooler than your rival by outperforming him in social situations and occasionally indulging a bit of blackmail. I don't really get how that's trickery per se, but at least now I know why you think Knowledge is cool, because clearly it does that.

I also note that an Enchanter (or better yet, Sorc 3/Enchanter X or Sorc 3/Illusionist 6+) is clearly a far better blackmailer/mind reader-style trickster than a Knowledge cleric is. That's exactly what I predicted would be the case in post #93 and it's good to have that suspicion confirmed.

BTW, social engineering is about using deception to steal secrets and manipulate people. Ripping secrets out of their head through supernatural abilities isn't social engineering at all, and IMO isn't very tricksterish. YMMV apparently.

[stoutstien]

What I am talking about is this:


Ok
I don't really get why you consider mind-control and social climbing "trickery", but at least your position is now clear. And I agree that the Trickery cleric isn't top-shelf at social climbing or mind control (and neither is the Knowledge cleric).

Can one trick without a social component? I mean how can you trick without a person to be tricked.