Search results

This is what I was getting at. When you price an ability you need to consider not just how powerful it is, but also how often you can use it. Sure it's nice to be able to use it an infinite amount of times, but how will that materialise in practice? In a short distance sprint endurance doesn't...

I pointed it out because it shows where the problem is, not what the solution is. It's like a mind trap: X and Y do almost the same thing but Y is more expensive so Y must be better. My point is simply that the cost of Y might not actually matter, and in that case think about that before making...

I'm going to add that I greatly appreciate this reply. Let's see if I agree with it ;) I want to point out that I intended the whole scenario as entirely hypothetical. It does not really make sense for there being a limit on it, but at the same time... There are already things that do not make...

It's worth noting that I'm not saying that those things I discuss in the opening post actually should be implemented. I'm lifting it as a possible solution to the problem at hand. A much better solution is to nerf spells in general and consider their utility without caring too much about them...

But the cost only matters if it actively hampers you. D&D is a drag race. It doesn't really matter how many times you can do X, because you can in general just long rest whenever you want and get all limited abilities back. There's no point in having an ultra-endurance engine that can race for...

With the exception of attacking, spells are pretty much superior. The only downside to spells is the cost, which is the point of the first post in this thread. Want to get across a chasm? Dimension Door, Teleport, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone Want to jump somewhere? Use the Jump spell (better...

Yes. 4E understood that it's difficult to mix free abilities with costly abilities since it's easy to get caught up in the idea that a free ability must be worse than a costly ability. Yes? I think, since wizards are already allowed to be better than pretty much all other classes at whatever...

Of course Knock is a bad spell, that doesn't make it a bad example. It doesn't matter if the spell I compare with is trash or not, I'm bringing Knock up because it has "guaranteed instant success" written all over it. Sure there are two downsides to it: You have to use a spell slot and there's a...

I never said Knock was a cantrip anywhere in my post.

Alice: "Why are there spells that allow casters to do things better than non-casters?" Bob: "Because spells are a limited resource and as such they must be more powerful" Alice: "How many times per day do you typically need to pick a lock?" Meditate on the above and you will soon reinvent D&D...

My personal experience supports his theory for what that's worth. When 4E came out, the things I strongly disliked were Changes to the realms and other settings Changes to alignment Casters using implements Casters not having spells Terminology stuff But when we actually tried to play it, we...

That's a terrible argument. You're saying that the reason that 4E "failed" was not because of changes to the setting, because if the setting caused it to fail that would be blamed on the writers, and the writers were hired to write the setting stuff to 5E. That makes no sense, because it...

You can avoid the problem if you allow feats to scale with level. Instead of having x-billion feats. Cut them down to, say, 20 or 30, and then have each feat automatically upgrade at certain points. This allows you to have gated feats in the sense that the full ability of the feat isn't...

Looks pretty cool to be quite honest.

I dunno. To be perfectly honest feats are a very passive choice in that you make the choice once and then forget about it, basically. Unlike spells. If I wanted to keep the game as uncomplicated as possible, let's just say it's not feats I'd remove from the system.

Might be, but I'm concerned with options and not necessarily power here. Remove feats and you remove a nearly all ability to customise non-casters.

I absolutely despise it. It works in short adventures when you don't risk having to play an incompetent buffoon for too long, but long campaigns? Heck no. However, there's a variant I use if people request rolling when I act GM. I call it stat-max rolling. You roll a d6 to determine one...

Nah. You can future proof spells easily with tags (or traits or whatever you want to call it). Give each spell traits that describe the spell thematically. Magic Missile = Force, Projectile Shield = Protection, Force, Wall Charm Person = Emotional Teleportation = Teleportation, Conjuration...

Feats are essential. If you don't have any feats some classes will be absolutely abysmal to play. The system is already suffering from casters being the only classes with actual options as you level up aside from feats. If you remove feats then there won't be ANYTHING else available. But yeah...

I mean all rules should have a purpose, I guess? I think it's a bit weird to argue that "if we want to listen to what person X is saying about rule Y person X must know what the purpose of rule Y is in the first place" and then to dismiss the sex rules in AW by questioning what purpose they serve!