I second these and would add spell descriptions. I dont want 30 pages of prewritten spells, all with varying levels of usefulness from garbage to gotta have. Give me a chart of various spell features and let the player decide how to combine them into unique spell effects, or just eldritch blast. Make it easy to use but hard to master.
Now that I think about it, same thing for feats that modify melee or ranged attacks. 1st level you get a 2 point attack or spell. 1 point for die of damage, one point for added element. Or 2 one point attacks maybe? Not sure about the logistics, but 30 pages of scripted attacks is both boring and pointlessly complex to keep track of.
We should have both - use the common keyword but also repeat the text in the monster statblock. That way the DMs who do remember can skip the repeated description, while those who don't have the text handy.
So every spell that inflicts a condition should list out the effects of the condition? Ugh.We should have both - use the common keyword but also repeat the text in the monster statblock. That way the DMs who do remember can skip the repeated description, while those who don't have the text handy.
So every spell that inflicts a condition should list out the effects of the condition? Ugh.
Well, in an exception-based game like D&D, you'd expect to handle an exceptional case like that by putting the relevant text (this can be used while paralysed) in the psionics rules.Also, that's a very errata-unfriendly thing to do if a keywork ever has to change. To make up an example, if an RPG added in psionics and allowed them to be used while Paralyzed. Change on one master sheet, or one master sheet and dozens of spells and monsters? Including some 3rd party.
Didn't 3.5 have this problem with polymorph and wild shape? Constantly trying to balance it? Isn't it why we got the Rules Compendium?Actually, in light of my previous post, there's something I'd like to add to my general "unnecessary complexity" list: errata.
As a rule of thumb, if your errata runs to more than 1% of the page count of the book you're fixing, it probably means you've made a mess of writing the thing. If you need to patch the same thing twice (that is, provide errata for your errata), that almost certainly means it's unnecessarily complex. And as soon as your "errata" moves beyond fixing errors and to revising good rules, you're adding unnecessary complexity - it should almost certainly wait for the next edition.
There are exceptions to all of the above, of course. And, of course, it's all IMO only.
I'm not sure if that was the motivation for the RC, but they certainly had several attempts at fixing shapeshifting. Definitely one of my go-to examples of how not to do things.Didn't 3.5 have this problem with polymorph and wild shape? Constantly trying to balance it? Isn't it why we got the Rules Compendium?
However, to address the point more widely, if they're faced with a change that's going to cascade like that, it needs to wait for the edition change. And, honestly, anything that stops them thinking they can patch printed books as if they were software is a good thing - of the many things I disliked about 4e, the constantly creeping errata was the very worst... and 5e is increasingly going the same way, IMO.