NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7559696" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I'm going to ask you in the nicest way possible to please stop derailing my thread by repeatedly asking why.I will add this: The end goal of the thread is to discuss the change, if you want to get into nuances of when the change is good and when it's bad I'm all for that and I think that would actually make for a very interesting discussion.  I didn't have to read your mind, I just had to read your posts.Posting a thread and asking for where this will throw off game balance wildly is being cautious.  Care to actually talk about where it's going to throw off game balance wildly? You keep saying I'm removing a functional thing for a caster to do every turn, but all I've done is nerfed how strong the functional thing they can do every turn is.  They can still do it.  It's still resource-free to do it.  Heck I even compensate them with extra spell slots for nerfing that.I never asked if my change was objectively good.  In fact I could care less about that because there isn't an objective answer to that question.  Instead I asked if you liked it (you don't and that's fine).  I asked about where it would be wildly imbalanced and any other pitfalls. I intend for change to be as power neutral as possible.NopeNope.Or my change has nothing to do with disliking cantrips...I get defensive because it's an effective deterrent and I already know what happens when people ask why and someone answer that question.  I've seen it to many times.  Instead of discussing their idea, it doesn't get discussed.  Instead what gets discussed is whether the reason for the change is legitimate, then it goes into what behaviors at the table are causing the OP to think that and finally a little may get said about whether there is some other different way that "solves" whatever reason was given.  No thanks.I don't have a problem that needs solved.  I have a discussion I want to have about a change I thought up.Just drop it already?  Well my point wasn't that all 5e group play that way, but rather that not all 5e groups play that.  You see by showing that criticism is applicable to some 5e games but not others, you "gave me an out" where I am now justified to say that criticism would only apply to some games with my rule change but not to all.  Why do you think it applies to all games that would be using my suggested rule?I don't ever see players getting excited about cantrips.  I see them getting excited about casting encounter changing spells which require spell slots.  I don't see how nerfing something they don't get excited about and giving them more of something they get excited about could ever lead to less fun.By the way there is a common argumentative tactic used where one constantly mentions the negatives but never the positives when it comes to a trade.  You're doing that an awful lot.  I just wanted to pointed that out.It might be that you don't understand my full dedication to not having my thread derailed with the question "why"Sure if your a ranger with hunters mark or a paladin with improved divine smite or a character with sharpshooter or GWM that's true.  But you didn't specify any of that.  In fact you just said fighter.  Fighter's tend to do maybe 1d8+7 damage per attack.  Help action will give one attack advantage.  Best case is you increase that single attacks chance to hit by 25%.  .25*11.5 is pretty close to .5*5.5.... just saying...The point I was making was that such a playstyle is not mandantory under current rules nor with my change.</blockquote>

Verification