Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9442672" data-attributes="member: 22779">[USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER], I mean, yeah.&nbsp; There's just no space for a conversation.&nbsp; Any criticism is immediately chalked up to &quot;bad actors&quot;.&nbsp; It's apparently impossible for the mechanics to be bad, no matter how many examples you give and how clearly you can demonstrate that tighter mechanics lead to less friction at the table.&nbsp; Is it really that controversial to say that tighter mechanics lead to less misunderstandings?&nbsp; It seems a pretty easy thing to demonstrate.&nbsp; No one has any arguments at the table about a Fly spell, for example, despite Fly being an incredibly versatile and useful spell.&nbsp; It grants you X flying speed for Y time.&nbsp; It doesn't tell you anything about how you fly - you just do.&nbsp; I can't think of any arguments I've ever had at the table about a Fly spell.And, really, probably most spells in 5e fall into the same category as fly.&nbsp; It's only a fairly small number (50 was the random number thrown out and that's probably about close. ) out of a very large number of spells in the game.&nbsp; One of the best things in 5e was stripping down the spell lists in the game - although that's been creeping back up over time.&nbsp; Personally, I'd be happier with about 6 spells per spell level per class.&nbsp; But, I know that's only my personal preference and others would hate that.But, the problem is, these 50 (or whatever the actual number is) exist.&nbsp; And that means I have to treat EVERY SINGLE instance as a problem.&nbsp; I have to police the players constantly to make sure that they are interpreting the spells correctly and that I am interpreting them correctly as well.&nbsp; I almost never get to play, so, I have pretty much zero idea what most spells do.&nbsp; Why would I?&nbsp; I never use them.&nbsp; I have to rely on the players knowing what their spells do and having spells that build in the idea of &quot;ask your DM to do funky things with this spell&quot; is a responsibility I have zero interest in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 9442672, member: 22779"] [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER], I mean, yeah. There's just no space for a conversation. Any criticism is immediately chalked up to "bad actors". It's apparently impossible for the mechanics to be bad, no matter how many examples you give and how clearly you can demonstrate that tighter mechanics lead to less friction at the table. Is it really that controversial to say that tighter mechanics lead to less misunderstandings? It seems a pretty easy thing to demonstrate. No one has any arguments at the table about a Fly spell, for example, despite Fly being an incredibly versatile and useful spell. It grants you X flying speed for Y time. It doesn't tell you anything about how you fly - you just do. I can't think of any arguments I've ever had at the table about a Fly spell. And, really, probably most spells in 5e fall into the same category as fly. It's only a fairly small number (50 was the random number thrown out and that's probably about close. ) out of a very large number of spells in the game. One of the best things in 5e was stripping down the spell lists in the game - although that's been creeping back up over time. Personally, I'd be happier with about 6 spells per spell level per class. But, I know that's only my personal preference and others would hate that. But, the problem is, these 50 (or whatever the actual number is) exist. And that means I have to treat EVERY SINGLE instance as a problem. I have to police the players constantly to make sure that they are interpreting the spells correctly and that I am interpreting them correctly as well. I almost never get to play, so, I have pretty much zero idea what most spells do. Why would I? I never use them. I have to rely on the players knowing what their spells do and having spells that build in the idea of "ask your DM to do funky things with this spell" is a responsibility I have zero interest in. [/QUOTE]

Verification