Talk:Gravity Warrior (5e Martial Archetype)
Giving Credit Where Due
This is a conversion of Rithaniel's Gravity Warrior, and I think they should be credited somewhere on the page. Is there a page attribute where it's appropriate to write name people for direct inspiration? --YLM (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Contesting Unbalanced Tag
Sorry Ghostwheel, gotta do it. I think you have several misconceptions about power level. Quote for reference: "The fighter is already one of the strongest single-target damage dealers; this gives very respectable AoE damage to the fighter, on top of a negative condition, and at higher levels one that only a monk has access to. Finally, 7th level spells on a short rest are not in line with the system's design, especially one as powerful as Reverse Gravity."
On fighter damage: Fighters are considered strong damage dealers with specific builds, such as ranged fighters that use sharpshooter. The intention is that most of the gravity warrior's kit will conflict, and in my testing I have seen this happen. Using Gravity Hammer tends to reduce DPR in a given round given how much easier it is to make an attack. I can see an argument for reducing it, though the danger of it doesn't come up.
Second on the power of stun: Monks having stun is a weak argument for it being too powerful, considering monks get it far more resource-efficiently, on any attack without changes to DPR, and have flexibility in terms of who they target.
On flexibility: Much like the original gravity warrior, the power budget of this ability is strongly bound up in the way it encourages you to play in combat and/or the way it encourages you to build your team. A large AOE stun makes it difficult for the Gravity Warrior not to affect friendly melee characters, which leads to playing around the gravity warrior's initiative or wide spacing in combat -- both of which are long-term costs.
reverse gravity: Reverse Gravity is actually weak to middling. Most concerns about it seem to stem from not playing the spell or getting significant DM assistance to "break" it. However, I double-checked access to spells/day and the short rest access criticism is a good point -- I missed how spell access falls off at high levels. I'll look for places to change this.