Weiley31
Legend
How do you handle that, assuming it was just an ability in the stat block and not a written up spell?
Me as the DM: "You cannot comprehend the true nature of this spell"
How do you handle that, assuming it was just an ability in the stat block and not a written up spell?
And they ignored ME, so I don't know who we is except the very specific group they catered to in the end.Yes, but In creating 5ed, they went on by asking us through survey and playtests what WE wanted.
Seriously? Just because they asked your opinion doesn't meant they're obligated to follow it. If Baskin-Robbins asks what flavors we like and I say 'Sawmill Gravy', even if they somehow end up producing it doesn't mean they're stuck with it until they burn down the building and try again.At this point, they have a.moral obligation to keep their word that this is our edition.
They're improving their product in (frankly) minor ways for the audience they now have. Again, they decide when to call a thing a new edition and at this point the difference is so minor calling it a new edition would be unprecedented. Like calling 3.5 4e because of Book of 9 Swords; just because you made a minor improvement doesn't mean it's a full edition.But a major rework of the 5ed principles such as these (and it goes way deeper than mere npc and monsters) should, no must warrant a new edition.
I'd allow the PC to perform magical research to learn that spell. If they spend the time and money and adventure for the right components, I'd let the player design a spell that matches this.Let's say for example that the party defeats Balkalathe the Indomitable, Sorcerer-Priest of the Outer Dark, who cast The Soul Rending Shriek of Mal'athazar -- 18d6 necrotic damage (DC 19 Con save for half) plus 2d6 charisma drain (DC 21 Wis save for half). The party wizard says, "I want to learn that spell!"
How do you handle that, assuming it was just an ability in the stat block and not a written up spell?
No did not. 5ed was made specifically to cater to both the traditionalists and progressists or the new and the old generation of gamers. They had to make compromise to both groups to make 5ed. Seeing how successful it was, it was the only way to do it. And though I was unhappy with some decisions, I swallowed my pride and accepted them because they were "necessary" to keep younger or progressists gamers.And they ignored ME, so I don't know who we is except the very specific group they catered to in the end.
Haaaaa. But if you order chicken at the King of Chicken restaurant (because they are reknown for it) and you are given beef you can say that is not what you wanted. This is exactly what they are doing right here and now. The 5ed was the reunification edition (as they had said in the forum before it went down).Seriously? Just because they asked your opinion doesn't meant they're obligated to follow it. If Baskin-Robbins asks what flavors we like and I say 'Sawmill Gravy', even if they somehow end up producing it doesn't mean they're stuck with it until they burn down the building and try again.
What you consider minor, starts to add up to quite a lot. They are in fact, building a new edition but they do not want to lose the golden goose. So they keep calling it 5ed where it is more and more appearing that it is no longer the truth.They're improving their product in (frankly) minor ways for the audience they now have. Again, they decide when to call a thing a new edition and at this point the difference is so minor calling it a new edition would be unprecedented. Like calling 3.5 4e because of Book of 9 Swords; just because you made a minor improvement doesn't mean it's a full edition.
And with consistent spell slots mechanics you would exactly know what level and what had happened with that spell (upscaled or not). The players would be able to reproduce the effect (however costly you'd make it). But they could do it without breaking the pattern.I'd allow the PC to perform magical research to learn that spell. If they spend the time and money and adventure for the right components, I'd let the player design a spell that matches this.
They would have to compromise because they wouldn't be able to learn the spell at this power level. 5e has scalable spells so perhaps this sorcerer was 20th level and that ability is to cast the spell upscaled. The base spell may be much more in line with what actually already exists in the spell lists.
No disagreement.What you consider minor, starts to add up to quite a lot. They are in fact, building a new edition but they do not want to lose the golden goose. So they keep calling it 5ed where it is more and more appearing that it is no longer the truth.
I do not find this a desirable outcome.And with consistent spell slots mechanics you would exactly know what level and what had happened with that spell (upscaled or not). The players would be able to reproduce the effect (however costly you'd make it). But they could do it without breaking the pattern.
That is exactly it. UA was power creep at the highest.No disagreement.
Was that true in 1 (UA), 2 (Skills and Powers), and 4 (Essentials)? Does it happen with just splat creep too, like 3.5?
But I do. I told you my reasons. What are yours? Only preferences or are they based on logic and strong game designs and intents as mine? I am curious to hear about your motivations.I do not find this a desirable outcome.