Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4321211" data-attributes="member: 94">Agreed, admirable goal, good post overall, but your weakest section is the middle solutions.Ultimately there are going to be a number of good solutions, but the one that works best may lose out to the one that is most backwards-compatible, most easily implemented. I for one would not accept a rewrite of monsters and spells. A large component of "compatibility" is defined by "How's the rest of my 3.5 library going to hold up?" Paizo can't rewrite the Denizens of Avadnu; they can't rewrite a Spell Compendium; etc.Rather than change the rules, change the way the rules interact. Just as an example (thinking as I write, mind you) consider limiting the number of buffs that can apply to any one statistic; rather than try to whittle down the infinite list of bonus types, instead define the finite list of statistics that can be buffed. The bonus types (sacred, inherent, racial, etc.) are subject to the whims of countless designers, but the statistics themselves (the moving, working parts of d20) are defined and fixed.With respect to what you have in Section 2, I think its strongest point is in recognizing the difference between buffs that can be debuffed, or otherwise run out mid-combat, and those that can't. As for dispel magic, I'd remove it entirely as an option in combat. It's draconian, but it's simple and effective. If you want to debuff in combat, you'll need to rely on specific debuffs. Absolutely NO recalculating an entire statblock in the middle of combat.</blockquote>

Verification